Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal Weighs in on Awards of Fees with Unsubstantiated Multipliers and Non-Testifying Expert Costs

By Kelly M. Vogt

Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal handed down a win for insurers facing high attorneys’ fee awards with multipliers. While the trial court had awarded over a million dollars in attorneys’ fees to the insured following a settlement reached between the parties, the appellate court partially reversed and remanded the award, significantly reducing the amount owed by the insurer.

The Court’s Opinion

The case is Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Dameras, which arose from a property insurance dispute. After settling, the trial court awarded a significant amount in attorneys’ fees to the plaintiff:

• Lodestar Fee: $389,362.50
• Contingency Risk Multiplier: 2.5x
• Expert Costs: $138,658.25

In total, the trial court’s award was over $1 million. In its recent opinion, the appellate court reversed parts of the award and significantly reduced the amount owed by the insurer.

Lodestar Amount: Affirmed

After considering the hours reasonably expended and the reasonable hourly rate as outlined in Florida Patients Compensation Fund v. Rowe, the appellate court affirmed the original award of $389,362.50.

Contingency Risk Multiplier: Reversed

Under Standard Guaranty Insurance Co. v. Quanstrom, a multiplier requires evidence that no other qualified attorneys would have taken the case without a multiplier. The insured’s fee expert only testified about the case’s riskiness, not about a lack of available competent counsel willing to work on a straight contingency basis. The trial court itself acknowledged that other firms could have handled the case, and the appellate court reversed the multiplier.

Non-Testifying Expert Costs: Remanded

The appellate court also remanded the cost awards for two experts who were retained for trial prep but never actually testified. Under Fla. Stat. § 92.231(2), these fees are not recoverable without specific findings justifying an exception. The $42,658.52 in fees for the non-testifying experts was remanded for analysis.

Ruling is Consistent with Court’s Recent Opinions

In other recent cases before the Third District Court of Appeal, the court has consistently shot down unsupported multipliers for first-party insurance litigation fees. Last year, Universal Property Insurance won a similar case in Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Medero, in which the appellate court found that Medero’s fee expert had not provided concrete evidence for a multiplier and an enhanced fee rate. The court reversed both.