11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 247b
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Attorney’s fees — Where attorney’s fees contract between insured and attorney limits fee award to percentage of amount awarded or stipulated to or percentage of remaining benefits under policy, motion for summary judgment awarding either of those two sums is granted, and jurisdiction to determine which of two sums is to be awarded is reserved pending additional argument
PERRY MOORE, Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County. Case No. 96-10119 CC. Division “T”. January 16, 2004. Charlotte W. Anderson, Judge. Counsel: Wendy Coxhead, for Plaintiff. Karen A. Barnett, Barnett & Associates, P.A., Tampa, for Defendant.
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL’SATTORNEY’S FEE AWARD AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT THEREOF
This cause having come before the Court on October 30, 2003 upon Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Attorney’s Fee Award and the Court having heard extensive argument of counsel, having reviewed all of the case law cited and having taken the matter under advisement hereby finds as follows:
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED
1. The attorney’s fees contract between Plaintiff Perry Moore and his attorney Wendy Coxhead limits Plaintiff’s counsel’s fee award to a percentage of the amount awarded or stipulated to, or to that percentage of the remaining benefits under the PIP policy.
2. The Court’s primarily relies upon the cases of Standard Guarantee Insurance Co. v. Quanstrom, 558 So.2d 828 (Fla. 1990); Lane v. Head, 566 So.2d 508 (Fla. 1990) and Inacio v. State Farm, 550 So.2d 91 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).
3. That the Court has also considered other fee agreements between attorney Wendy Coxhead and other clients under Defendant’s Notice of Filing of October 30, 2003, and the Court finds that these further support the basis of the Court’s ruling.
WHEREUPON the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant shall pay either a percentage of the $500.00 recovery in this case with whatever interest the Court determines to be applicable, or a percentage of the remaining PIP benefits under Plaintiff’s policy with State Farm, with whatever interest the Court may determine is applicable, and the Court shall reserve jurisdiction to hear additional argument on which of those sums shall be awarded in a final judgment for attorney’s fees pending further argument from the parties.
* * *
