13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 728a
Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Contingency risk multiplier — Where medical provider’s likelihood of success at outset of case was 50/50 at best, local market requires contingency risk multiplier in order to obtain competent counsel, and provider obtained 100% of outstanding medical bills, multiplier of 1.75 is appropriate — Costs and expert witness fees awarded
FRANCISCO M. GOMEZ, M.D., P.A., (As assignee of Berta Flores), Plaintiff, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Small Claims Division. Case No. 03-26459-SC, Division I. April 10, 2006. Charlotte Anderson, Judge. Counsel: Timothy Patrick, Timothy A. Patrick, P.A., Tampa. Heather Harwell.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO TAX ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS AND APPLY A CONTINGENCY RISK MULTIPLIER
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on April 7, 2006, on Plaintiff’s Motion to Tax Attorney’s Fees and Costs and Apply a Contingency Risk Multiplier. Present before the court were Plaintiff’s counsel, Timothy A. Patrick, with his expert witness, Roberto Alayon, Esquire and Defendant’s counsel, Heather Harwell, Esquire, with its expert witness, Tom Gacio, Esquire. The court, after hearing argument of counsel and considering the evidence and testimony presented and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby
ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Pursuant to F.S. 627.736(8) and F.S. 627.428, Plaintiff’s Motion to Tax Attorney’s Fees and Costs and Apply a Contingency Risk Multiplier is hereby GRANTED.
2. The court has based its decision on and applied the factors contained in Standard Guaranty Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1990); Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985); and Bell v. U.S.B. Acquisition Company, Inc., 734 So.2d 403 (Fla. 1999).
3. Regarding the hourly rate(s) and the number of hours, the parties stipulated and the court finds that Plaintiff’s counsel, reasonably devoted 80 hours in this case and should be compensated at the rate of $250.00 per hour.
4. Regarding the application of a contingency risk multiplier, the court follows Quanstrom and Rowe. If success is determined as more likely than not, then the multiplier range is 1.0 to 1.5; if the chances of success are even, then the multiplier range is 1.5 to 2.0; if the chances of success are unlikely, then the multiplier range is 2.0 to 2.5. This court finds that the Plaintiff’s likelihood of success was no better than 50/50 at best, which fits into the middle category of risk, approximately even, at the onset of this case and pursuant to Quanstrom, Rowe and its progeny, applies a contingency risk multiplier of 1.75. In addition to the findings made on the record, the court’s application of the contingency risk multiplier is based upon the following specific findings:
5. The court finds that the local market requires a contingency risk multiplier in order to obtain competent counsel. The court finds that there was no evidence presented that there were any other Plaintiff’s attorneys, who, even if they were willing to take this case, would have taken it without the possibility of a multiplier.
6. The court finds that in evaluating the risk at the onset of this case, Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s demand letter did not provide much guidance for Plaintiff’s counsel in evaluating potential defenses. The court finds that it is reasonable for Plaintiff’s counsel to believe that the Defendant had a reasonable basis upon which it denied payment of the subject medical bills.
7. Regarding the results obtained, the court finds that the Plaintiff obtained 100% of the outstanding medical bills, plus all statutory interest. Thus, the results obtained were certainly very good.
8. The court gives consideration to all of the Quanstrom and Rowe factors in finding that a contingency risk multiplier of 1.75 is appropriate.
9. Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs expended by Plaintiff’s counsel:
(A) 80 hours x $250.00 per hour = $20,000.00 loadstar attorney’s fees
(B) applicable contingency risk multiplier — 1.75
(C) total reasonable attorney’s fees — $35,000.00
(D) reasonable court costs — $369.15
(E) reasonable expert witness fees — $1,875.00 (7.5 hours x $250.00 per hour for Plaintiff’s expert Roberto Alayon)
(F) total reasonable fees, costs, and expert witness fees — $37,244.15
FINAL JUDGMENT OF ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS AGAINST DEFENDANT
Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Court hereby ADJUDGES as follows:
1. Plaintiff, Francisco M. Gomez, M.D., P.A., (as assignee of Berta Flores), shall have and recover against Defendant, United Automobile Insurance Company, the amount of $35,000.00 in reasonable attorneys’ fees; $369.15 in reasonable costs; and $1,875.00 in reasonable expert witness fees, for a total sum due of $37,244.15, that shall bear interest at a rate prescribed in section 55.03, Florida Statutes, of 9% per annum, for all of which let execution issue.
* * *
