Volume 12

12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 95b

Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Appellate fees — Contingency risk multiplier — Where medical provider’s counsel was employed on pure contingency basis, relevant market required multiplier to obtain competent counsel, provider’s counsel was not able to mitigate risk of nonpayment in any way, first appellate case on lack of countersignature involved novel issue of first impression and high level of skill and competence to prevail, provider substantially prevailed on all claims at all levels, and provider’s chance of success at outset was 50% or less, multiplier of 2.0 is applicable — Expert witness fee, costs, and prejudgment interest awarded

12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 85a

Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Contingency risk multiplier — Multiplier is not applicable where relevant market did not require multiplier to obtain competent counsel even though counsel was employed on pure contingency basis and was unable to mitigate risk of nonpayment — Expert witness fees and costs awarded

12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 77a

Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Contingency risk multiplier — Where medical provider’s counsel undertook representation in PIP suit pursuant to pure contingency fee agreement, market requires multiplier to obtain competent counsel, and provider’s chance of success at outset was unlikely, multiplier of 2.0 is applicable — Where counsel undertook representation in related declaratory judgment action on pure contingency basis, market requires multiplier to obtain competent counsel, and success at outset was more likely than not, multiplier of 1.25 is applicable — Expert witness fee, costs, and prejudgment interest awarded

12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 76a

Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Contingency risk multiplier — Where parties agree that multiplier is appropriate, and court finds likelihood of success was less than even at outset, multiplier of 2.0 is applicable — Costs and prejudgment interest awarded

12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 481a

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

12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1029a

Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Contingency risk multiplier — Necessity of written findings — Where transcript of fee hearing clearly reflects trial judge’s consideration of need for multiplier and trial court’s order mentions necessity of multiplier, no abuse of discretion in awarding attorney’s fees with multiplier without further written findings to support multiplier

12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 747a

Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Contingency risk multiplier — Grant of contingency risk multiplier would be unjust where attorney for insured increased risk that insured would not receive coverage and, consequently would not be entitled to award of attorney’s fees, by refusing to identify insured at examination under oath and advising insured not to comply with insurer’s request that insured bring driver’s license to EUO — Likelihood of success is measured at time attorney was retained, not later time complaint was filed — If multiplier were appropriate, multiplier would be 1.0 where insurer had not even denied coverage at time insured retained attorney — Costs, expert witness fee and prejudgment interest awarded

12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 475a

Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Contingency risk multiplier of 2.5 is appropriate — In addition to other factors, case represented issues more complex than typical PIP case in that it was discovered during treatment for injuries sustained in automobile collision that plaintiff suffered from Demyelenating brain disease, or M.S., and it was possible that treatment prescribed by treating medical provider which was appropriate for collision-related injuries may have made M.S. symptoms worse rather than better — Although plaintiff only recovered interest in the amount of $27.11, insurer cannot use argument of minimal results where, less than a week after being served with lawsuit, insurer paid out balance of benefits from policy to another medical provider, thereby exhausting benefits due on behalf of the plaintiff

12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 478a

Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Contingency fee agreement — Where medical provider’s counsel undertook representation pursuant to pure contingency fee agreement, and chances of success at outset were approximately even, contingency risk multiplier of 1.5 is appropriate — Costs, expert witness fees and prejudgment interest awarded

12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 426a

Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Contingency risk multiplier — Where Florida Supreme Court has not answered certified question as to whether multiplier may be used to enhance fee award granted under fee-shifting statute such as section 627.428 and has not overturned decisions specifically approving multipliers on fees awarded in PIP cases, award of multiplier in PIP case was appropriate — Where insurer engaged in extensive investigation of claims filed by insured and medical providers, denied it had received proper notice of claim, advised provider that bills did not meet requirements for notice of claim, terminated benefits based on independent medical examination and advised that it would not make any voluntary payment and was closing file, trial court did not err in applying 1.75 multiplier because evidence supported finding that chance of success at outset was approximately even