13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 130b
Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Contingency risk multiplier — No abuse of discretion in ruling that 1.5 multiplier was appropriate and that medical provider’s attorney was entitled to reasonable hourly rate of $200 where provider and attorney entered into contingency fee contract and expert testified without rebuttal that relevant market requires multiplier, that she was unaware of any attorney within community who would have taken case, and that provider’s attorney was unable to mitigate risk of nonpayment — Error to award fees for litigating entitlement to multiplier
UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant(s), vs. MRI DIAGNOSTICS OF PALM BEACH a/a/o DELICY RUIZ, Appellee(s). Circuit Court, 18th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Seminole County. Case No. 04-55-AP. October 31, 2005. Appeal from County Court, Seminole County, Honorable Carmine Bravo. Counsel: Joseph F. Scarpa, Jr., Luks Santaniello, Perez, Petrillo & Gold, Orlando, for Appellant. Kevin B. Weiss, Weiss Legal Group, P.A., Maitland, for Appellee.
(ALLEY, N., J.) United Automobile Insurance Company (“Appellant”) appeals an Amended Final Judgment Awarding Attorneys’ Fees and Costs in this PIP action. This Court affirms in part, reverses in part and remands for further proceedings.
The Appellant raises several arguments on appeal: 1) that the lower court abused its discretion in awarding a 1.5 multiplier and ruling that Appellee’s counsel was entitled to a reasonable hourly rate of $200.00; 2) that the Appellee’s counsel was not entitled to 7.2 hours for litigating entitlement to a multiplier; and 3) that the lower court miscalculated the total amount due in attorney’s fees and costs in its final judgment.
This Court holds that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that a 1.5 multiplier was appropriate and that Appellee’s counsel was entitled to a reasonable hourly rate of $200.00. There was substantial, competent evidence supporting the lower court’s decision to apply a multiplier pursuant to the factors in Standard Guaranty Insurance Co. v. Quanstrom, 555So. 2d 828, 834 (Fla. 1990). Concerning the first factor, whether the relevant market requires a contingency fee multiplier to obtain competent counsel, Appellee’s expert testified that the relevant market required a contingency multiplier. Additionally, Appellee’s expert testified that she was unaware of any attorneys within the community who would have taken the case. Appellant provided no testimony concerning this factor. Next, concerning the second factor, Appellee’s expert testified that Appellee’s counsel was unable to mitigate the risk of non payment. No contrary testimony was provided by Appellant. Finally, as to the third factor, whether any of the factors set forth in Rowe areapplicable, the lower court found that Appellee and its counsel entered a contingent fee agreement.
However, this Court agrees with Appellant’s second argument that the lower court erred in awarding Appellee’s counsel 7.2 hours for litigating the entitlement to a multiplier. See Allstate Indemnity Co. v. Hicks, 880 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Furthermore, this Court agrees with Appellant’s contention that the lower court miscalculated the Attorney’s Fees and Costs by adding the amount for litigating entitlement to a multiplier twice, and listing the expert witness fee as $1,760.00, rather than $1,750.00.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part; REMANDED for further action in light of the decision in Hicks, supra.
* * *
