8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 405a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Attorney’s fees — Offer of judgment — Insured who rejected insurer’s initial offer of judgment for certain amount exclusive of fees and costs, and who ultimately accepted an offer in a lesser amount awarded attorney’s fees and costs incurred up to date of initial offer
YUSEF CAYIRCI, Plaintiff, vs. U.S. SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. 97-15817 COCE 56. March 14, 2001. Linda R. Pratt, Judge. Counsel: Charles Glen Ged, Ellis & Ged, Boca Raton, for Plaintiff. Adolfo Podrecca, Fazio, Dawson, DiSalvo, Cannon, Abers, Podrecca & Fazio, Ft. Lauderdale, for Defendant.
FINAL ORDER ON MOTION FOR FEES & COSTS
This cause was tried before the Court on plaintiff’s motion to tax fees and costs. Upon review of the record, the Court finds as follows:
Plaintiff filed suit in 1997 against defendant seeking payment of approximately $2,000.00 in PIP benefits. On May 12, 1998 defendant served plaintiff with an offer to settle the case for $1,401.00 exclusive of fees and costs. The offer was not accepted, and litigation continued until the case was ultimately settled in 2000 for $1,000.00, exclusive of fees and costs. At the time of the initial offer to settle, plaintiff had incurred fees for approximately 6.5 hours of attorneys time. Plaintiff now seeks payment for approximately 53 hours of attorneys time, plus a multiplier of 2.25. As grounds for use of a multiplier, plaintiff’s counsel asserts that the case was problematic at the outset, for several reasons, including plaintiff’s need for an interpreter, and the fact that there was a significant lapse of time after his accident before plaintiff sought the treatment in question.
Defendant’s position is that since this case was settled for less than what defendant had previously offered, plaintiff is not entitled to any fees or costs incurred after the date of the offer, or May 12, 1998. Both parties claim their position is supported by Scottsdale Insurance Company v. De Salvo, 748 So.2d 941 (Fla. 1999).In that case the Florida Supreme Court determined that an insured who recovers less than the insurer’s offer of settlement may still recover attorney’s fees and costs through the date of the offer. In determining whether plaintiff recovered less than defendant’s offer in this case, the court considered the fact that the initial offer was for $1,401.00 exclusive of fees and costs, meaning that plaintiff would receive a reasonable fee in addition to the $1,401.00. Plaintiff then settled for $1,000.00, plus fees and costs. Plaintiff argues that using the formula set out in the DeSalvo case, the court should add the fees and costs incurred to the date of the first settlement offer to the ultimate settlement, in this case 6.4 hours at $200.00 per hour, plus the $1,000.00 for a total of $2,280.00. Since that figure exceeds the first offer of $1,401.00, plaintiff argues he is entitled to fees through the date of settlement. However, the flaw in this argument is that unlike in the DeSalvo case, the $1,401.00 offer is exclusive of fees. If you add the $1,280.00 in fees incurred through the date of the offer to the initial offer (and you must if you are comparing apples to apples), then the plaintiff does not recover more than if he had accepted the initial offer. ($2,280.00 is less than $1,280.00 + $1,401.00) Therefore, using the principles as explained in the DeSalvo case, this court finds that plaintiff may only recover fees through the date of May 12, 1998.
Therefore, plaintiff is entitled to 6.4 hours of time at a rate of $200.00 per hour, for a lodestar of $1,280.00. The court finds that a multiplier is not applicable because it is not necessary to obtain competent counsel to handle PIP cases, even difficult ones.1 The costs incurred through May 12, 1998 are $151.00.
Accordingly, It is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that plaintiff, Yusef Cayirci, shall recover from defendant, U. S. Security Insurance Company, the sum of $1,431, for which let execution issue.
__________________
1The court would point out that recent small claims dockets have become overwhelmingly “PIP” dockets, and the clerk has had to add to the number of cases scheduled for each docket to accommodate an increase of PIP filings.
* * *
