11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 140b
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Attorney’s fees — Plaintiff’s attorney is awarded fees for 15.8 hours of work at $300 per hour — Contingency risk multiplier of 2.0 is appropriate in PIP action where one of defenses was that insurer appropriately paid reduced medical fees pursuant to preferred provider contract, and risk of success at outset was less than, or even at best — Costs and expert witness fee awarded
CRAIG LICHTBLAU, M.D., P.A., Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Civil Division. Case No. 2002CC009841-RD. October 9, 2003. Charles E. Burton, Judge. Counsel: Charles Kane, Kane & Kane, Boca Raton. Laura Rodgers, Fort Lauderdale.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR FEES AND COSTS
THIS CAUSE came before the Court October 9, 2003, on Plaintiff’s Motion to Tax Attorney’s Fees and Costs with both counsel and independent expert witnesses present. Based on the evidence presented the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
1. Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking to recover PIP benefits. The Defendant invoked five affirmative defenses and litigated the case. Among the defenses raised was that the Defendant, pursuant to a contract with Beech Street Corporation, appropriately paid reduced medical fees pursuant to a PPO contract. The Court notes that up until recently, no district court had ruled on this issue and there were several conflicting county court opinions. Moreover, at the time the lawsuit was filed, county courts throughout the state had conflicting rulings on this issue.
2. Based on the testimony presented at the hearing, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s counsel, Charles Kane, reasonably and necessarily devoted Fifteen point Eight (15.8) hours to the prosecution of this action at a reasonable rate of $300.00 per hour, for a fee of $4,740.00. Mr. Kane has been a lawyer since 1965 and has a Master of Laws in Taxation. He has had broad experience in several areas involving complex litigation. Further, the Court notes from prior hearings that Mr. Kane is well known and respected as a plaintiffs PIP attorney in the community. Brian Korte, reasonably and necessarily devoted point Eight (.8) hours to the prosecution of this action at a reasonable rate of $250.00 per hour, for a fee of $200.00. Thus, a total fee of $4,940.00 is appropriate. Other courts have found that the market rate for lawyers in the Palm Beach County area to be in the range of $250. to $350. per hour. Alvarado v. Federated National Insurance Co., 10Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 549 (Palm Beach County Court, May 22, 2003). The Court has considered the evidence presented and pursuant to the factors enunciated in Quanstrom and Roe finds that a multiplier of 2.0 is appropriate in this case, as the risk for success at the outset was less than, or even at best. Accordingly, the total fee awarded is $9,880.00.
3. Plaintiff has incurred $225.00 in taxable post-judgment costs, based on the Uniform Guidelines for Taxation of Costs in Civil Actions.
4. The Plaintiff’s expert witness, Steven Ainbinder, Esquire, was necessary to render an opinion relating to the reasonable number of hours and the reasonable hourly rate and is entitled to Three (3.0) Hours for reasonable time spent at an hourly rate of $300.00 for a total expert witness fee of $900.00. The Court notes that Mr. Ainbinder has extensive experience, both as a plaintiffs counsel and as counsel for insurance companies, in dealing with issues surrounding PIP litigation and the issues raised in this case. Based on the foregoing, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff shall recover from Defendant the sum of $9,880.00 in fees, pre-judgment interest from May 5, 2003 in the amount of $254.99, $225.00 in costs, and $900.00 for expert witness fees for a total of $11,259.99, for which amount let execution issue, with statutory post-judgment interest at the rate of 6%. The Court reserves jurisdiction to award additional fees and costs pursuant to a determination of entitlement and pro-rata distribution based upon the cases included in Defendant’s Motion for Disqualification.
* * *
