Volume 11

11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1034a

Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Determination of amount of attorney’s fees and costs — Contingency fee multiplier not applicable in case at issue

11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 921a

Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Contingency risk multiplier — Where medical provider’s two attorneys were employed on pure contingency basis, relevant market requires multiplier to obtain competent counsel, and counsel was unable to mitigate risk of nonpayment in any way, multiplier of 1.5 is awarded to only one attorney — Expert witness fees, costs, and prejudgment interest awarded

11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 915a

Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Contingency risk multiplier — Where likelihood of success for provider was more likely than even at outset of case, multiplier of 1.5 is reasonable — Expert witness fees, costs, and prejudgment interest awarded

11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 855a

Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Reasonable hourly rate — Where testimony never made it clear which work was performed by provider’s attorney and which by attorney’s less experienced associate, provider’s attorney and expert witness testified that $300 was reasonable hourly rate for both attorney and associate, and insurer did not present any evidence of reasonable hourly rate, court must find that $300 is reasonable hourly rate for all hours expended — Contingency risk multiplier — There was little risk in accepting case on assigned claim with issues of exhaustion of benefits and correctness of coding as provider would know what other treatment had been provided and billed and could show attorney why codes billed are correct — Attorney’s concerns regarding possible counterclaim for fraud and provider dismissing suit and leaving attorney without compensation are matters that could have been taken care of in fee arrangement and should not be included in determination of multiplier — Despite parties’ stipulation that multiplier is appropriate, fact that PIP benefits assignment cases are kind of work that lawyers want to do causes multiplier to gravitate downward and could cause one to conclude that use of multiplier is no longer necessary in such cases — Based on stipulation that multiplier is appropriate, multiplier of 1.5 is applied — Costs and expert witness fee awarded

11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 754b

Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Contingency risk multiplier — Where provider’s attorney undertook representation pursuant to pure contingency fee agreement, attorney was not able to mitigate risk of nonpayment, market requires multiplier to obtain competent counsel in like cases, and provider’s likelihood of success at outset of case was approximately even, multiplier of 1.5 is appropriate — Costs, prejudgment interest, and expert witness fee are awarded

11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 741a

Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Amount — Fees are awarded for 50 hours at hourly rate of $250 — Contingency risk multiplier — Where provider’s likelihood of success was even at outset of case, multiplier of 1.5 is applicable — Costs, prejudgment interest, and expert witness fee are awarded

11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 740a

Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Attorney’s fees awarded to prevailing insurer — Provider continued prosecution of case against insurer knowing that it failed to serve presuit demand letter and despite notification that benefits were exhausted prior to filing suit

11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 734a

Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Contingency risk multiplier — Where attorney was retained on pure contingency basis and was not able to mitigate risk of nonpayment in any way, but relevant market did not require contingency fee multiplier to obtain competent counsel, multiplier is not applicable — Expert witness fee, costs, and interest awarded

11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 697a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Attorney’s fees — Contingency risk multiplier — No abuse of discretion in awarding 2.4 multiplier where trial court found, based on provider/assignee’s unrebutted evidence, that chance of success at outset was less than 50%, that provider/assignee had pure contingency risk contract with attorney, and that applicable criteria and factors set forth in Rowe and Quanstrom warranted multiplier — Relief from judgment — Standing — Insurer’s argument in motion for relief from judgment that trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because there was no proper assignment of benefits to give provider standing lacks merit where motion was filed year and a half after entry of judgment, after payment of outstanding bill at issue, after agreement on lodestar attorney’s fees, and after award of multiplier — Motion also lacks merit because original dispute was action for breach of contract related to assignment to provider, provider’s standing was established once trial court found assignment valid, and time for appeal of that decision has passed — No abuse of discretion in denying motion for relief from judgment alleging that provider’s conduct was fraudulent and knowingly deceptive where motion was filed more than one year after entry of judgment — If insurer wishes to pursue fraud claim, it should be brought in civil action separate from instant action for assignment of claim for medical services provided — Appellate attorney’s fees awarded to provider

11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 596b

Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Contingency risk multiplier — Abuse of discretion to award contingency risk multiplier where trial court was presented with no evidence on whether market required multiplier to obtain competent counsel — Even if market evidence had been presented, trial court abused its discretion in finding that provider’s likelihood of success at outset of case was less than even where issues to be resolved were fairly simple, insurer was merely defending against deficiencies in complaints filed by provider, insurer paid claims in full once it was provided with copies of bills at issue, and insurer indicated to provider that discovery did not have to be answered once bill of particulars was submitted