fbpx

Case Search

Please select a category.

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. IDORABLE RENUS, Appellee.

7 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 389b

Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Time spent arguing for application of multiplier relates to amount of attorney’s fees, not to entitlement — Fees awarded on multiplier issue reversed

UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. IDORABLE RENUS, Appellee. Circuit Court, 15th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Palm Beach County (Civil). Case No. AP 97-10497 AY. Opinion filed March 14, 2000. Appeal from County Court in and for Palm Beach County, Robert V. Parker, J. Counsel: Hinda Klein, Hollywood, for Appellant. Diego C. Asencio, North Palm Beach, for Appellee. James P. Cooksey, West Palm Beach, for Appellee.

(PER CURIAM.) We affirm the trial court on all but one issue. On the authority of Dixie v. Puzo, 5 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 211 (Appellate Division 15th Circuit for Palm Beach County, May 8, 1996), time spent arguing for application of a multiplier relates to the “amount of attorney’s fees” and not to “entitlement”. Consequently, the 2.5 hours of attorney’s fees awarded on this issue must be reversed.

This Court finds it necessary to note the lack of candor of Appellant’s attorney, Diego Asencio, in this matter. Mr. Asencio was the appellate attorney in the Dixie v. Puzo, case in which the identical claim he argues here was rejected. As well, in his brief, Mr. Asencio quotes the opinion in Joseph v. Allstate Insurance Co., 4 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 325 (Palm Beach County October 3, 1996), but fails to advise this appellate court that the relevant portions of the Joseph case have been set aside. Rule 4-3.3(3), Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (1999) states:

A lawyer shall not knowingly… fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel.

This Court finds it difficult to justify Mr. Asencio’s actions in light of this rule.

REMANDED only on the issue of attorney’s fees ordered in connection with time spent arguing for application of a multiplier. (BLANC, BROWN and KROLL, JJ., concur.)

* * *

Skip to content