15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 893a

Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Amount — No abuse of discretion in failing to reduce amount of attorney’s fees based on testimony of insurer’s expert where there is nothing to indicate ruling was arbitrary, fanciful or unreasonable

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellant, vs. WIDE OPEN MRI, a/a/o Hazel Gadson, Appellee. Circuit Court, 17th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Broward County. Case No. 07-22395 CACE 21. L.T. Case No. 06-11526 COCE 50. July 24, 2008. Counsel: Ivy Ginsberg, United Automobile Insurance Company, Office of General Counsel, Coral Gables. Dean A. Mitchell, Ocala.

OPINION

(CHERYL J. ALEMAN, J.) THIS CAUSE comes before this Court, sitting in its appellate capacity, upon an appeal by, United Automobile Insurance Company (“United”), of the trial court’s Final Judgment awarding attorney fees to Appellee. Having considered the briefs of both parties, the record on appeal, applicable law, oral arguments, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, this Court finds and concludes as follows:

The standard of review is that of“abuse of discretion.” Bryan & Sons Corp. v. Klefstad, 265 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). “Where the trial court is authorized to award attorneys’ fees, such award being within the sound discretion of the court, the fees will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a clear showing of an abuse of that discretion.” Id. at385.

Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by not reducing the amount of attorney fees, based upon expert testimony it presented at hearings held on August 21 and 22, 2007. Judicial discretion is abused when the trial court’s action is “arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable.” Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980).

A review of the record reveals nothing that would indicate that the trial court’s ruling was “arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable.” The trial court’s decision is supported by competent, substantial evidence presented at the hearing. It is not the prerogative of this Court to re-evaluate the weight or credibility of testimony or other evidence accorded by the trial court as the trial court has the superior vantage point from which to make these determinations. See Canakaris at 1203.

Accordingly, the trial court’s Final Judgment is AFFIRMED.