12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1029a
Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Contingency risk multiplier — Necessity of written findings — Where transcript of fee hearing clearly reflects trial judge’s consideration of need for multiplier and trial court’s order mentions necessity of multiplier, no abuse of discretion in awarding attorney’s fees with multiplier without further written findings to support multiplier
U.S. SECURITY INSURANC E COMPANY, Appellant, vs. WILLIAM E. YOHAM II, Appellee. Circuit Court, 17th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Broward County. Case Nos. 04-18222 & 04-18223 (25). August 1, 2005.
OPINION
(ROBERT A. ROSENBERG, J.) THIS CAUSE comes before the court upon direct appeal from an order granting attorney’s fees in favor of appellee William E. Yoham II and against appellant U.S. Security Insurance Company, and the court having considered same, having reviewed the briefs submitted by the parties, and being otherwise duly advised in premises, finds and decides as follows:
On November 18, 2002, Efrain Dara and Larinel Raines were involved in an automobile accident, in which both sustained serious injuries. Dara and Raines subsequently received chiropractic treatment from appellee Dr. Yoham. Dara and Raines both assigned their PIP benefits to appellee, who subsequently submitted claims for PIP benefits to appellant U.S. Security Insurance Company. A fee hearing was held on October 28, 2004. During this hearing, Yoham argued for reasonable legal fees, which included a contingency multiplier. The trial judge granted a 1.5 multiplier. A transcript of the fees hearing clearly, reflects the judge’s consideration and need for a multiplier. In the trial court’s order, the trial judge mentioned the time reasonably spent in litigation, the hourly rate, and the necessity for a multiplier. Now on appeal, appellant argues the trial judge failed to make a required written finding to support a contingency multiplier.
The standard of review for a trial court’s ruling on a contingency risk multiplier is an abuse of discretion standard. Old Plantation Corp. v. Maule Industries, 68 So.2d 180 (Fla. 1953). If reasonable men could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then it could not be said that the trial court abused its discretion. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1980).
Under Florida law, when a trial court grants a contingency fee multiplier, the judge must set forth specific findings as to how he or she determines the hours expended, the hourly rate, and the appropriate reduction or enhancement factors. Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145, 1151 (Fla. 1985). Furthermore, the Fourth District has ruled that the record must be sufficient to support the findings for a contingency multiplier. State Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co. v. Hoover, 833 So. 2d 261, 261-262 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). In Hoover, the court remanded the case back to the trial court because there was an absence of written findings in the trial court order and there was a lack of verbal findings on the record. Id.
In the instant case, appellant argues that the trial judge must produce a written finding to support the contingency multiplier. This court disagrees with appellant. Upon reviewing the trial transcript and the written findings in this case, it is apparent that the trial judge considered the relevant factors for granting a contingency risk multiplier. Thus, it is this court’s opinion that the trial court did not abuse her discretion by awarding attorney’s fees, with a multiplier, to the appellee.
Accordingly it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Order Granting Attorney’s Fees is AFFIRMED.
* * *
