9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 133a
Insurance — Attorney’s fees — Trial with novel motion x-ray test at issue and less than 50/50 chance of success for plaintiff at outset, resulting in verdict for full amount — Multiplier of 2.4 warranted
NU-BEST DIAGNOSTIC LABS, as assignee of DARLENE PIERRE, Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 9th Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County. Case No. SCO-98-7796. December 17, 2001. C. Jeffery Arnold, Judge. Counsel: Bob Shea, McKeever, Albert & Barth, Winter Park. Robert Oxendine, Tampa.
FINAL JUDGMENT AWARDING PLAINTIFF’SATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS
THIS MATTER having come before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Tax Attorney’s Fees and Taxable Costs and the Court having heard argument of Counsel, having considered the expert testimony and evidence presented at hearing, having reviewed the Court file, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, thereof, the Court finds, based upon the record before the Court, as follows;
1. The Court has considered all of the factors/criteria set forth Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla. 1985) and Standard Guarantee Insurance Company v. Quanstrom, 555 So.2d 828 (Fla. 1990) and its prodigy.
2. The Court finds that the relevant market requires a contingency fee multiplier to obtain competent counsel.
3. The Court finds the attorney for the Plaintiff was not able to mitigate the risk of nonpayment.
4. The Court finds that there were applicable Rowe factors to substantiate the application of a multiplier to this award.
5. The Plaintiff obtained a jury verdict for the “full amount” sought by Plaintiff.
6. The Plaintiff has a pure contingency fee contract with its attorney.
7. To some and lesser extent, the Counsel to Plaintiff was precluded from other employment while handling this litigation.
8. The disputed issue in this case regarding the “motion x-ray” was a difficult question at the inception of the case. “Video fluoroscopy” has been used within the medical community for a number of years and is recognized as a valid diagnostic tool. This case included the use of a series of x-rays, called the “motion x-ray” which was not used by the vast majority of the medical community.
9. It was necessary to have bright, articulate, skillful and experienced counsel to conduct the jury trial involving the aforementioned issues.
10. The experience, reputation and ability of the attorneys who tried this case were outstanding. The trial skills were required by virtue of the fact of the lack of acceptance of the test by the medical community or novelty of the test at issue in the litigation.
It is therefore, ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:
11. The Court finds the chance of success for Plaintiff, at the outset of this litigation, was less than 50/50. A multiplier in the amount of 2.4 is warranted.
12. The Court awards the agreed upon lodestar amount of $75,000.00.
13. The total attorney fee awarded to Plaintiff’s counsel is $180,000.00.
14. The Court awards Court Costs, incurred by the Plaintiff, in the amount of $8,620.47.
15. The Court awards pre-judgment interest from the date of verdict, January 24, 2001, through the entry of final judgment at ten (10%) percent per annum interest in the amount of $16,126.02.
16. The Court awards expert witness fees to Adam Littman, Esquire, as costs, as follows:
a. Reasonable number of hours: 12 and,
b. Hourly rate: $250.00 per hour
Total expert fee: $3,000.00.
It is thereupon adjudged that The Law Firm of McKeever, Albert & Barth, 2221 Lee Road Building, Suite 15, Winter Park, Florida 32789 shall recover from the Defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, the sum of $207,746.49, which shall bear interest at the rate of (11%) for the current year and thereafter at the prevailing rate per year as provided by Florida Statutes, for all of which let execution issue.
* * *
