15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 686b
Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Contingency risk multiplier — Abuse of discretion to award 2.0 multiplier to medical provider where there was no compentent substantial evidence that provider had difficulty obtaining competent counsel, and there was testimony to the contrary
PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant(s), vs. FLORIDA EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS, as assignee of MARVENE JONES, Appellee(s). Circuit Court, 18th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Seminole County. Case No. 06-109-AP. L.C. Case No. 04-SC-2218. April 3, 2008. Appeal from County Court, Seminole County. Counsel: Betsey E. Gallagher and Michael C. Clarke, Kubicki Draper, Tampa, for Appellant. Kevin B. Weiss, Weiss Legal Group, P.A., Maitland, for Appellee.
(PERRY, J.) Progressive Express Insurance Company (“Progressive”) appeals an order awarding attorneys’ fees to the Appellee, after application of a 2.0 multiplier.
Progressive Express raises an issue that this Circuit recently addressed in American Vehicle Insurance Company v. Florida Emergency Physicians Kang & Associates, as Assignee of William Eve, 18th Judicial Circuit Case Number 06-95-AP. For the reasoning provided in American Vehicle and pursuant to Progressive Express Insurance Company v. Schultz, 948 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007), this Court finds that the trial court abused its discretion when it awarded a 2.0 multiplier to Appellee’s counsel in this case.
In this case, there was no competent, substantial evidence presented that FEP had difficulty obtaining competent counsel. Additionally, the Appellee provided testimony at the attorneys’ fees hearing indicating that under the corporate emergency provider scenario, numerous attorneys were willing to take these types of cases. Compare SunBank of Ocala v. Ford, 564 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 1990) (holding that multiplier had no application in the case because commercial banks have had no difficulty in locating attorneys to represent them).
Accordingly, pursuant to the reasoning provided, the Final Judgment Awarding Attorney’s Fees and Costs is REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
