19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 397a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1905RAMGInsurance — Personal injury protection — Attorney’s fees — Amount — Reasonable hourly rate and hours reasonably expended determined — Costs, expert witness fees and prejudgment interest awarded
RUPERT RAMGADOO, Plaintiff, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 9th Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County. Case No. 07-CC-16946, Division 71. October 12, 2011. Deborah B. Ansbro, Judge.FINAL JUDGMENT FOR ATTORNEY’S FEESAND COSTS IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF
This matter came before the Court on July 1, 2011, for an evidentiary hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs. Counsel for both parties were present and each offered expert testimony. Various exhibits were offered into evidence and are part of the record Having heard testimony, having reviewed the documents in evidence, having heard argument of counsel and being otherwise duly advised in the premises. the court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Summary of the Record and Evidence in This Matter:
Section 627.428(1) authorizes a court to award reasonable attorney’s fees to an insured in the event the insured is successful in an action instituted against an insurer under an insurance contract. Section 627.428 is intended “to discourage the contesting of valid claims against insurance companies and to reimburse successful insureds for their attorney’s fees when they are compelled to sue to enforce their insurance contracts ” Ins. Co. of N. America v. Lexow, 602 So 2d 528, 531 (Fla 1992) If ever an insured was “compelled” to bring suit to enforce its rights under an insurance contract, Plaintiff Ramgadoo is that person.
The record before the Court in this matter dates back to April 3, 2006, when Plaintiff Ramgadoo (hereinafter “Plaintiff’), through his attorney Glenn Klausman (hereinafter “Attorney Klausman”), attempted to secure personal injury protection benefits for medical bills and lost income arising from injuries Plaintiff received as a result of being rear ended in a motor vehicle accident On April 3, 2006, Attorney Klausman sent to counsel for United Automobile Insurance Company, the defendant in this case (hereinafter “United Auto”), a six page letter detailing two years’ of efforts undertaken by Plaintiff Ramgadoo to prevail upon United Auto to pay Plaintiff Ramgadoo’s medical bill and lost income claims The six page letter included supporting documentation and concluded with a plea for payment of Plaintiff’s long outstanding claims.
After United Auto failed to make payment following the April 3 letter, a second detailed six page statutory demand letter was sent by certified mail to United Auto on May 12, 2006, listing each date of medical service and the amounts billed on each date, and attaching detailed supporting documentation Following the six page letters of April and May, additional pre-suit letters were sent to United Auto by Attorney Klausman: however, United Auto continued to refuse to make payment on the claims.
On October 23, 2007, more than a year after United Auto had received the statutory demand letter, Plaintiff Ramgadoo filed this suit against United Auto for unpaid personal injury protection benefits pursuant to the numerous demands issued since 2004. United Auto responded to this suit by asserting ten affirmative defenses, including the affirmative defense of accord and satisfaction.1
Shortly after filing suit, Attorney Klausman wrote to United Auto’s attorney regarding discovery propounded by United Auto in the case Attorney Klausman’s time entry for preparation of the letter reads:
Letter to def atty re discovery propounded by def and request we try and get case settled and resolved before spending significant atty time responding to the voluminous discovery requests.
On December 17, 2007, Attorney Klausman delivered yet another letter to United Auto’s attorney restating the legal reasons the affirmative defense of accord and satisfaction did not apply in this matter, and suggesting that United Auto consider paying the long outstanding claims “before we both spend significant hours litigating this lawsuit ” In response to Attorney Klausman’s letter, United Auto’s counsel delivered to Attorney Klausman a Proposal for Settlement in the amount off $150, inclusive of attorney fees and costs.
During the course of this litigation, Attorney Klausman spent a considerable amount of time traveling to South Florida for depositions, including depositions of United Auto’s adjustor(s) and United Auto’s IME Dr. Marfisi, who refused to submit to depositions in the Orlando.2 Attorney Klausman’s time sheets also include entries for issues about which Attorney Klausman believed the attorneys for both parties had reached agreements, but were subsequently rescinded by United Auto. An example relates to time entries regarding Plaintiff’s filing an Amended Complaint. On March 3, 2008, United Auto’s attorney agreed to stipulate to the filing of an Amended Complaint and requested that Attorney Klausman “prepare a joint stipulation and agreed order and [send] it to her to review.” Later in the month, on March 24, Attorney Klausman was told by United Auto’s counsel that they would discuss the issue of an Amended Complaint with their client and get back with him. A few days later, United Auto’s attorneys advised Attorney Klausman that “their position now is they don’t want to agree to the amended complaint.” In early May, the attorneys had several discussions regarding scheduling a hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend including a request to reschedule a hearing date to which United Auto’s attorneys had previously agreed.
According to the evidence, Attorney Klausman expended a significant amount of time researching and attacking United Auto’s defense of accord and satisfaction. In as brief a summary as possible, the undisputed facts relating to that issue are as follows:
On May 12, 2006, United Auto received the statutory PIP benefits demand from Attorney Klausman, requesting payment of unpaid medical bills of Dr. Machuga and lost income to Plaintiff Ramgadoo. Included in the package was a reassignment of PIP benefits executed by Dr Machuga in favor of Plaintiff Ramgadoo (the original assignment from Plaintiff to Dr Machuga having been executed at or about the time of treatment as is customary). As had been its practice in the past, United Auto denied payment.
United Auto subsequently received a PIP demand letter from Dr Machuga’s attorney requesting payment for Dr Machuga’s services provided to Plaintiff. Attached to Dr Machuga’s demand was the original assignment of benefits that pre-dated the reassignment of benefits by Dr Machuga to Plaintiff Ramgadoo, a copy of which had previously been provided to United Auto on May 12 by Attorney Klausman.
In spite of being in possession of the executed reassignment of benefits from Dr. Machuga to Plaintiff Ramgadoo, and in spite of having repeatedly denied payment to Plaintiff Ramgadoo, United Auto issued a check directly to Dr Machuga. United Auto’s check to Dr. Machuga was in the amount of approximately $1,400 and included the notation. “As Full/Final Payment for PIP Benefits.”
United Auto then claimed the payment directly to Dr. Machuga satisfied 100% of United Auto’s obligation to pay personal injury protection benefits on behalf of Plaintiff Ramgadoo. Upon becoming aware that the payment from United Auto to Dr Machuga was improper, Dr Machuga promptly returned the monies to United Auto in the form of a check equal to the total amount he had received. United Auto accepted and deposited the refund check from Dr Machuga.
Extensive discovery was conducted by Plaintiff in this case. After taking the deposition of United Auto’s corporate representative on May 12, 2008, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment for Income Loss Benefits on the basis there was no disputed material fact as to the income loss benefits being payable and overdue.
On May 13, 2008, the day after Plaintiff filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, Attorney Klausman delivered a letter to United Auto’s counsel describing in detail the lost income claim and explaining, also in detail, the reasons United Auto’s affirmative defense of accord and satisfaction was wholly without merit.3 The letter concluded as follows
I have detailed what I believe the record shows in this case with the hope this letter will find its way in the bowels of United to someone with both the good sense to recognize the claims pending in this lawsuit should be paid at this time and someone with authority to order payment of the PIP claims
The following day, May 14, 2008, United Auto confessed judgment on the issue of Plaintiff’s lost income United Auto, however, continued to defend against payment of the claim for medical bills. United Auto’s continued refusal to pay the claim for medical bills was based on (1) the affirmative defense of accord and satisfaction, and (2) the opinion rendered by Dr. Marfisi, United Auto’s independent medical examiner.
Contained within Attorney Klausman’s timesheets is an entry dated June 26, 2008, relating to a telephone conversation between Attorney Klausman and United Auto’s counsel. The time entry reads:
Spoke to def atty re Marfisi depo and his appearing for his rec custodian depo. Discussed fact that we are spending significant time on this case and suggested United settle the case to stop the clock [on attorney fees] as significant time will be spent in the coming weeks. Response [from United Auto’s counsel] was “It is what it is,” and United is aware of it and chooses to defend.
(Emphasis added) Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2, pg. 11.
Thereafter, Attorney Klausman began to prepare for the referenced Marfisi deposition, conducting substantial research into Dr. Marfisi’ background and training Dr. Marfisi, a South Florida chiropractic physician, had performed a medical examination on Plaintiff Ramgadoo at the request of, and for the benefit of, United Auto. In spite of his office being located in South Florida, Dr. Marfisi had traveled from his office to Orlando to examine Ramgadoo for United Auto.4
Through extensive investigation, Attorney Klausman discovered that Dr. Marfisi had performed approximately 12,000 examinations for insurance companies defending against claims by insureds. Moreover, Attorney Klausman unearthed evidence that raised considerably troubling questions about Dr. Marfisi’s background, training, credentials, and veracity. For example, Attorney Klausman discovered that, while Dr. Marfisi regularly and routinely wore surgical scrub attire that included the initials “D.C.” and “M.D.,” the unaccredited Caribbean Island medical school from which Dr. Marfisi’s supposedly graduated had been closed after becoming the subject of a government investigation for selling medical degrees. As more and more negative information about Dr. Marfisi surfaced, Attorney Klausman continued to expend considerable amounts of time in preparation for Dr. Marfisi’s deposition, including carefully and meticulously reviewing more than a dozen depositions taken previously of Dr. Marfisi in other cases.
On August 29, 2008, Attorney Klausman traveled to South Florida to take the deposition of Dr. Marfisi. Upon being confronted during the deposition with the overwhelming negative information uncovered during Attorney Klausman’s extensive investigation, Dr. Marfisi made concessions that were favorable to Plaintiff Ramgadoo’s case, in essence completely reversing his previous opinion, and stating during the deposition that Plaintiff Ramgadoo was in need of further medical treatment for his accident related injuries. In light of the reversal of Dr. Marfisi’s opinion, Attorney Klausman again wrote to United Auto’s counsel requesting that United Auto pay the medical claim rather than continue to spend time litigating the issue.
On September 30, 2008, United Auto filed a lengthy Motion for Summary Judgment, with a supporting affidavit and exhibits United Auto’s motion was based exclusively on the affirmative defense of accord and satisfaction.
In response to United Auto’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Attorney Klausman spoke with United Auto’s counsel on October 20, 2008 The timesheet relating to this conversation notes:
. . .discussed fact [United Auto’s counsel] filed a Motion for SJ that will now require probably 30 hrs of my time to respond and file a counter Motion for SJ and why hasn’t United paid the wage loss claim and why is United Still denying payment of the medical bills claim after the favorable testimony for the plaintiff from United IME physician Marfisi. [United Auto’s counsel] understands and is following United’s instructions.
Finally, on November 4, 2008, United Auto tendered payment of the personal injury protection benefits it had refused to pay for more than two years.
Stipulations of the Parties in this Matter:
(1) The parties agree that Plaintiff Ramgadoo is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and taxable costs from United Auto.
(2) The parties agree that Plaintiff Ramgadoo is entitled to receive prejudgment interest at the rate of 11% per annum on the amount Plaintiff recovers for attorney’s fees and taxable costs on the lost income claim through May 14, 2008.
(3) The parties agree that Plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest at the rate of 11% per annum on the amount Plaintiff’s recovers for attorney’s fees and taxable costs as of November 4, 2008, up to the date of entry of this final judgment.
(4) The parties agree that the amount of taxable costs to be awarded to Plaintiff in this action is $3,902.45
(5) The parties agree that Plaintiff’s expert witness, Kevin Weiss, Esquire, is entitled to an hourly rate of $400.00 for a reasonable number of hours expended in this matter.
Testimony of Plaintiff’s Attorney Klausman:
In support of Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees, Attorney Klausman presented timesheets showing he expended 82.2 hours in this matter prior to May 14, 2008, and 105.8 hours subsequent to May 14, 2008. Additionally, Attorney Klausman testified during the course of the hearing, in part, as follows:
1. He has practiced law since admission to the Florida Bar in June 1976, and his honors include, inter alia, recognition with an AV rating by Martindale-Hubbell, election as one of Florida’s Super Lawyers in 2010 and 2011, recognition by Florida Trend magazine as Legal Elite in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011, and voted Best of the Bar in Personal Injury and Insurance Law every year since 2005.
2. His normal hourly rate charged to clients for his services is $500.00 per hour.
3. He has been awarded an hourly rate in other matters up to $475.00 in cases going back as far as 2005, if not farther back in time, by both county and circuit court judges in Orange, Osceola and Seminole Counties.
4. Attorney Klausman had previously submitted to a deposition in this matter focused solely on the issue of attorney’s fees and had also provided discovery responses on the issue in response to United Auto’s requests.
Plaintiff’s Expert Witness, Kevin Weiss:
In support of his request for attorney’s fees, Plaintiff Ramgadoo presented the expert testimony of Kevin Weiss, Esquire. United Auto stipulated to Mr Weiss’s qualifications as an expert on the issue of attorney’s fees, as well as to a reasonable hourly rate for his preparation and testimony of $400.00 per hour During the hearing, Mr. Weiss testified, in part, as follows:
1. Attorney Klausman is rated as a 10 on a scale of 1 to 10.
2. Attorney Klausman is “the lead person for the Florida Justice Association, which used to be the Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers, with regard to automobile insurance litigation.”
3. As to Attorney Klausman’s position amongst his peers, Mr Weiss testified that “You [Klausman] were the guy that trained many of us, including myself. As a mentor, to a certain extent, we looked up to you. When I became involved in this type of work, to learn the trade, I actually worked for Mark Nation. But Mark had told me you [Klausman] were the go to guy with regard to learning this type of business. So that provides a basis for why I believe that you should get the highest hourly rate that this judge feels comfortable awarding, that would be my basis. And I can name at least 30 to 40 lawyers in this town who look to you as being the primary person on this type of work.”
4. Mr Weiss testified that Dr. Marfisi, the IME chosen by United Auto in this matter, was “not very well known” in the Central Florida area; however, Attorney Klausman had learned through his investigation and research that Dr. Marfisi had performed more than 12,000 exams for United Auto and had received a significant amount of money for those exams and for testimony relating thereto. Moreover, as a result of Attorney Klausman’s thorough and in-depth investigation into Dr. Marfisi’s background and credentials, Dr. Marfisi completely changed his testimony.5
5. Mr Weiss testified that fee awards of $500 per hour, and in excess of that amount, have been entered in favor of other practicing attorneys throughout Central Florida in numerous other cases, including, but not limited to, an award of $500 per hour to corporate counsel for Sea World,6 and an award of $500 per hour to Mark Nation, Esquire, in Government Employees Ins Co. v. Jimenez, et al, entered on May 2, 2011, in Case No 2007-CA-7484 in the Circuit Court of Orange County. Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4.
6. He had reviewed Attorney Klausman’s entire collection of files relating to this suit, as well as all timesheets prepared in this matter.
7. He opined that he would reduce the time requested by Attorney Klausman by 3 hours for the period prior to May 14, 2008, and 1 hour for the period subsequent to May 14, 2008, believing a reasonable amount of time expended by Attorney Klausman in this matter should be 184 hours.7
8. He further opined that a reasonable hourly rate for Attorney Klausman’s services in this matter is $500.00 per hour.
DEFENDANT’S EXPERT WITNESS, ROB BARTELS, Esquire:
In support of its position, United Auto presented the expert witness testimony of Rob Bartels, Esquire Mr. Bartels testified, in part, as follows
1. He did not review any of Mr. Klausman’s numerous files in this matter.
2. He did not review the transcript or any notes of Attorney Klausman’s deposition on the issue of attorney’s fees.
3. He did not review the exhibits provided to United Auto’s counsel during the course of Attorney Klausman’s deposition in support of the time entries and hours claimed to have been spent in this matter.
4. Based exclusively upon his review of only the timesheets submitted by Attorney Klausman, Mr. Bartels testified to numerous specific entries he opined were excessive. For example, he expressed his opinion that he believed the two hours Attorney Klausman spent on the six page PIP demand letter were excessive, and that thirty minutes was more appropriate.
5. Mr. Bartels also testified as to several significant time reductions and the basis therefore, which were readily explained by Attorney Klausman during the hearing, and which had been previously explained during Attorney Klausman’s deposition on the issue of fees which Mr. Bartels had not reviewed.8
6. Mr. Bartels opined that $500.00 per hour was too excessive a rate for Attorney Klausman’s services, and that, instead, a reasonable hourly rate for Attorney Klausman’s services in this matter is $400.00 per hour.
The Court has carefully reviewed each of the entries about which Mr Bartels raised concerns. However, as the trier of fact, this court finds it difficult to accept the majority of Mr. Bartels opinions as being reasonable and sufficiently supported after his admission that he had failed to review both the voluminous files maintained by Attorney Klausman relating to this matter, as well as the Klausman deposition transcript and exhibits thereto focused exclusively on the issue of attorney time spent in litigating this case.9
FINDINGS AS TO REASONABLE HOURLY RATE AND HOURS EXPENDED:
As to the issue of the reasonable number of hours Plaintiff’s counsel expended prosecuting this claim, the Court has considered the record presented and finds the reasonable number of hours Plaintiff’s counsel expended prosecuting this case is 180 hours, of which 78.2 hours were expended before May 14, 2008, and 103.8 hours were expended after May 14, 2008.10
As to Mr Klausman’s hourly rate, the Court has considered the evidence presented as well as the record in this matter. The Court has also considered previously entered orders/judgments awarding fees to Attorney Klausman in other cases over the past several years as presented by both sides during the hearing, as well as testimony presented concerning attorney fee awards by other judges for the services of other attorneys in the Central Florida marketplace.11 On this particular issue, the court notes that fee awards in other cases were presumably based upon the particular evidence in each of those separate actions as presented before each Court. While those decisions may have some evidentiary value, the issue of the hourly rate for Attorney Klausman in this case should, and will be, determined by the testimony and evidence presented in this particular case and by the applicable law and relevant factors in the Florida Bar Code of Professional Responsibility, Rules Regulating Fla. Bar, Rule 4-1.5(b).
Based on the record file and evidence, and in light of Attorney Klausman’s skill, experience and reputation through the State of Florida, the court finds that the rate of $500.00 per hour is a reasonable hourly rate for his services in this matter.12
Conclusion:
ACCORDINGLY, based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant United Automobile Insurance Company as follows:
1. For attorney fees’ prior to May 14, 2008, United Automobile Insurance Company shall pay the sum of $90,000.00; plus pre-judgment interest on that sum starting May 14, 2008, at the statutory interest rate of 11% per annum, with a daily interest rate of 0003014; and
2. For attorney fees after May 14, 2008, United Automobile Insurance Company shall pay the sum of $51,900.00; plus pre-judgment interest on that sum starting on November 4, 2008, at the statutory interest rate of 11% per annum, with a daily interest rate of 0003014; and
3. For taxable costs prior to May 14, 2008, United Automobile Insurance Company shall pay the sum agreed upon by the parties of $385.00, plus prejudgment interest on that sum starting May 14, 2008, at the statutory interest rate of 11% per annum, with a daily interest rate of .0003014; and
4. For taxable costs after May 14, 2008, United Automobile Insurance Company shall pay the sum agreed upon by the parties of $3,902.45, plus pre-judgment interest on that sum starting on November 4, 2008, at the statutory interest rate of 11% per annum, with a daily interest rate of .0003014
5. Plaintiff’s expert witness, Kevin Weiss, Esquire, is entitled to be compensated for the time expended in preparing to testify and testifying in this case Mr. Weiss testified that he had reasonably expended 12 hours in this matter, which was not contested by Defendant, and he is entitled, pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, to receive an hourly rate of $400.00 per hour, for a total expert fee of $4,800.00. See, Travieso v. Travieso, 474 So.2d 1184 (Fla. 1985); Stokus v. Phillips, 651 So.2d 1244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) [20 Fla. L. Weekly D627c], and Mangel v. Bob Dance Dodge, Inc., 739 So.2d 720 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) [24 Fla. L. Weekly D2106a].
All of the foregoing for which let execution issue according to law.
__________________
1United Auto s affirmative defense of accord and satisfaction was based on a claim of payment by check from United Auto to Plaintiff’s medical provider, Dr. Machuga which check had included the notation “As Full/Final Payment for PIP Benefits.”
2See, Attorney Klausman’s time entry on January 14, 2008, which reads
Contacted def atty’s office and left message for def atty and also requested from his asst dates for adjuster depo so we can flush out all the defenses and determine if there is going to be a coverage dispute and why they have paid zero for client’s income loss Gave them six dates the end of February, so we can try and get case resolved as client needs the income loss benefits and has been paid none by United. Def atty office said United Adjustors will not travel and I’ll have to set their depos in Miami.
(Emphasis added) Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2, pg. 3.
3The letter stated in part.
The defense of accord and satisfaction is not available to a creditor who pays an assignor when the creditor knew, or should have known, the assignor had assigned the debt to an assignee. That is exactly the case we have here.
4As noted by Plaintiff’s expert witness, Mr. Weiss, Dr. Marfisi charged Plaintiff an hourly rate of $500.00 and had actually requested $2,000 per hour upon learning that his deposition was to be videotaped
5Specifically, Mr. Weiss testified that Attorney Klausman “tapped into his knowledge base in South Florida,” and reviewed “at least 12 or 13 depositions — or prior depositions of Dr. Marfisi” sent to Attorney Klausman by other attorneys, in addition to presenting to Dr. Marfisi the administrative complaint wherein the chiropractic board had sanctioned Dr. Marfisi, and a photograph of Dr. Marfisi at his office computer with a screen saver that read “Make $50,000 today.”
6The award was subsequently affirmed by the Fifth District Court of Appeal.
7Mr Weiss opined that the reasonable number of hours Attorney Klausman spent before May 14, 2008, was 79.2 and after May 14, 2008, was 104.8.
8One example relates to a March 20 entry for travel to and from Miami for a corporate representative deposition that Mr. Bartels reduced from 12.2 hours to 11.2 based on his opinion of “the amount of time it takes to travel to South Florida.” During cross examination, Mr Bartels admitted he was not aware of Attorney Klausman’s explanation for that trip during his deposition on the fee issue, specifically that Attorney Klausman had left Orlando at 8:00 a.m. in “miserable” traffic on I-4 due to rain and multiple accidents, that the deposition was completed at 4:45 p.m and the return trip to Orlando took 3.5 hours, for a total time, as billed, of 12.2 hours.
A second example is Mr Bartels testimony that he reduced to two hours an entry for August 29 for travel to Florida Medical Specialists for a two hour deposition, on the basis that Attorney Klausman had “already billed 3.5 for traveling to South Florida for the deposition. So I do not believe that the travel time would have been necessary the next day because he was already down there. Moreover, on the 29th and the next entry for travel to the corporate rep’s depo and Marfisi’s depo of 3.6 hours, that entry I reduced from — it was thereto to 5.7 because that would include the 3.5 hours travel back and the depo time of 2.2 hours, that was the actual transcript time. So there is nothing to account for the difference between the 5.7 and the 8.5. So that is the basis for my reduction there.” On cross examination Mr. Bartels admitted he was unaware that both the travel and the deposition took an hour more than Mr. Bartels had assumed, that the deposition started late because Dr. Marfisi arrived late, and that the attorneys had stayed after the conclusion of the deposition to assist the court reporter with marking multiple exhibits from Dr. Marfisi’s deposition. As in other instances, Attorney Klausman had previously explained the questioned inconsistencies during his deposition on the issue of fees. However, again, Mr. Bartels admitted he had not only failed to review the deposition transcript, but he was completely unaware that Attorney Klausman’s deposition had been taken.
9The Court also considers less than reasonable Mr. Bartel’s opinion that the reasonable hourly rate for Attorney Klausman, an attorney with a wide range of litigation experience for 35 years should be $400, while also opining that the reasonable hourly rate for Mr. Kevin Weiss, an attorney for 15 years who, by admission was essentially trained by Attorney Klausman is $400 as well.
10As recognized by the Florida Supreme Court, a defendant may decide to “go to the mat” over a bill however, “having chosen to stand and fight over [the] charge, [the Defendant insurer] made a business judgment for which it should have known a day of reckoning would come should it lose in the end,” State Farm v. Palma, 555 So.2d 836, 837 (Fla. 1990). Moreover in the case at bar as in others before it, Plaintiff did not inflate a small case into a larger one, but, instead, “its protraction resulted from the stalwart defense.” Id. Quoting from McGowan v. King, Inc., 661 F.2d 48, 51 (5th Cir 1981). Thus, Defendant herein, while not required to yield an inch or to pay a dime not due by its militant resistance increased the exertions required of its opponent and thus, as a result of being unsuccessful, is required to bear that cost Id.
11Mr. Weiss testified concerning other attorneys in the community receiving court awarded fees of $500 or more, including reference to Sea World of Florida v. Ace American Ins. Co., 28 So 3d 158 (Fla 5th DCA 2010) [35 Fla. L. Weekly D361a], wherein the Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed, in footnote 1, Circuit Judge Tom Smith’s attorney fee award of $500 per hour to the responsible attorney, as well as a $450 hourly award to Mr. Klausman as the attorney fee expert in that case.
12The court recognizes that $500 per hour is a high hourly rate, but that does not make it unreasonable. Unquestionably, Attorney Klausman is one of, if not the most preeminent attorneys in his field who charges the rate of $500 per hour to other clients. Moreover as noted by the County Court in Santa Rosa County, Florida, the State of Florida is currently paying Barry Richards, Esq. as outside counsel in insurance litigation the hourly rate of $715. Baybridge Chiropractic Clinic, P.A. v USAA Casualty Ins. Co. Case No. 2010-CC-650 [18 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1016a], citing Janet Zink, Costs Mount in Defense of State Insurance Chief, Miami Herald, May 19, 2011. The article notes that the State of Florida has contracted with numerous other attorneys for payment of an hourly rate in excess of $700 per hour, and Attorney Klausman is undoubtedly as preeminent in his field as those attorneys are in theirs.
* * *
