23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 790a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2307SMEDInsurance — Personal injury protection — Attorney’s fees — Amount — Expert witness fee and costs awarded
FLORIDA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER a/a/o Charley Smedley, Plaintiff, vs. THE TRAVELERS HOME AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 18th Judicial Circuit in and for Seminole County. Case No. 2014-SC-02322-A. November 18, 2015. Honorable Frederic Schott, Judge. Counsel: Rutledge Bradford, and Brett D. Sahm, Orlando, for Plaintiff. Marci L. Matonis, Orlando, for Defendant.
FINAL JUDGMENT AND FINDINGS OFFACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAWAS TO ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS
THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the 10th day of November, 2015, before the undersigned County Judge on the Motion for Attorney’s Fees And Costs. Having carefully reviewed the Motion and other submissions made by the parties, having heard argument from counsel for the respective parties, having reviewed all of the testimony and evidence presented, having reviewed all of the applicable Florida Statutes, Florida case law, and Federal case law, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, the Court issues this Final Judgment and makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
1. The Parties previously stipulated that counsel for the Plaintiff was entitled to a reasonable attorney’s fee to be paid by the Defendant. Additionally, the Parties previously stipulated that the Plaintiff was entitled to reimbursement for taxable costs from the Defendant.
2. On the above date, this Court conducted an extensive evidentiary Hearing on the Motion for Attorney’s Fees And Costs. The Court has determined that the number of hours reasonably expended by counsel for Plaintiff in this case to successfully prosecute this case is a total of 12.3 hours. These include the reasonable hours expended pre-suit based upon this Court’s determination that there was unreasonable conduct by the insured when they wrongfully denied benefits to their own insured after submission of the statutorily required demand letter.
3. The Court has also determined based upon the criteria set forth in Disciplinary Rule 4-1.5(b) of the Florida Bar Rules of Professional Responsibility that a reasonable hourly rate for the hours expended by counsel for the Plaintiff is $450.00 per hour. In making this finding, the Court has carefully considered all of the evidence presented on this issue, including the opinions of Mr. Kennon and Mr. O’Connor.
4. In making its ruling, the Court specifically considered the following factors in determining the reasonable hourly fee and the reasonable number of hours spent litigating this case:
A. The time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the question or questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal services properly.
B. The likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment of the lawyer.
C. The fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services.
D. The amount involved in the results obtained.
E. The time limitations imposed by the client or in the circumstances.
F. The nature and length of the professional relationship with the client.
G. The experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the services
H. Whether the fee is fixed or contingent.
Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145, 1150 (Fla. 1985).
In the instant case, Brett Sahm, Esquire, a well-regarded litigator in Central Florida, seeks an hourly rate of $450.00 for his work. The Court finds this hourly rate to be reasonable for an attorney with the experience and expert skill level of Mr. Sahm.
5. Additionally, based on controlling case law dealing with the issue of awarding of attorney’s fees, the Court notes several guidelines to assist in determining whether a fee is reasonable.
The Court must consider the time that would ordinarily have been spent by lawyers in the community to resolve this particular type of dispute, which is not necessarily the number of hours actually expended by counsel in the case at issue. Trumbull Ins. Co. v. Wolentarski, 2 So. 3d 1050, 1056-57 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) [34 Fla. L. Weekly D274a]. The Court must also insure that the attorney did not overstate or inflate the number of hours which were reasonable necessary for a case of comparable skill and complexity and that the services rendered and hours expended were reasonably necessary in order to achieve the result obtained in this case. In the instant case, it is this Court’s findings that the evidence did not reveal that counsel for the Plaintiff was “over-thorough” in research and preparation but rather moved forward in this case in a manner reasonable for this type of case and that the time which this Court is awarding for fees was both reasonably necessary for a case requiring comparable skill and complexity and was reasonably necessary in order to achieve the result obtained in this case.
The Court should also consider the amount of fees sought in relation to the amount in dispute. Progressive Express Inc. Co. v. Schultz, 948 So. 2d 1027, 1032-33 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) [31 Fla. L. Weekly D2610a]. In determining whether the fee sought in this case is reasonable, the Court has therefore considered the relative paucity of the amount involved.
The Court should also consider whether it has received adequate documentation to support the number of hours claimed. As stated by the Florida Supreme Court, “inadequate documentation may result in a reduction in the number of hours claimed.” Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145, 1150 (Fla. 1985). This is true because “Florida courts have emphasized the importance of keeping accurate and current time records of work done and time spent on a case, particularly when someone other than the client may pay the fee.” Id. The Court finds that the documentation supporting the fee request in the case sub judice was detailed and well-supportive of the fee request.
The Court must also determine whether the attorney’s efforts complied with prevailing professional standards. The Court finds in the case sub judice that, indeed, the attorney’s efforts and time expended comply with prevailing professional standards.
6. The ultimate goal of all of the guidelines set forth above is to determine a reasonable attorney’s fee. In sum, the Court finds that the time awarded in this case was reasonable based upon all of the factors discussed in the cases set forth herein and under Rule 4.1-5 of the Rules of Professional Responsibility.
7. The Court finds that the award of a multiplier is not appropriate in this case.
8. The Court finds that Hans Kennon, Esquire, is entitled to a reasonable expert witness fee for the reasonable hours which he expended in preparation for and attendance at the Hearing herein. It is this Court’s finding that Mr. Kennon is entitled to a reasonable hourly rate of $575.00 per hour and that Mr. Kennon expended eight reasonable hours in preparation for and attendance at the Hearing held on November 10, 2015.
9. Finally, the Court finds that the Plaintiff is entitled to taxable costs in the amount of $458.48, all of which the Court finds to have been reasonably incurred.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. That the counsel for the Plaintiff shall recover the sum of Five Thousand Five Hundred Thirty-Five Dollars ($5,535.00)from the Defendant, plus interest thereon at 4.75% per annum from October 24, 2014, the date determining that the Plaintiff was entitled to payment of an attorney’s fee from the Defendant, that shall continue to bear interest at the rate of 4.75% per annum until paid, for which sums let execution issue.
2. That Plaintiff’s counsel shall recover from the Defendant the sum of Four Hundred Fifty Eight Dollars and Forty-Eight Cents ($458.48) for costs incurred on behalf of the Plaintiff, plus interest on $114.48 of this amount at 4.75% per annum from October 24, 2014, the date determining that the Plaintiff was entitled to payment of an attorney’s fee from the Defendant, with the entire amount continuing to bear interest at the rate of 4.75% per annum until paid, for which sums let execution issue.
3. That Hans Kennon, Esquire, is entitled to a reasonable expert witness fee to be paid by the Defendant in the amount of Four Thousand Six Hundred Dollars ($4,600.00), for which sum let execution issue.
