Volume 26

Case Search

SLOSSBERG FAMILY CHIROPRACTIC CENTER INC, Plaintiff/Petitioner v. ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant/Respondent.

26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 599a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2607SLOSInsurance — Personal injury protection — Attorney’s fees — Discovery — Insurer’s motion for protective order barring medical provider from deposing insurer’s corporate representative is granted where sole remaining issue is amount of fees owed to insurer, insurer has responded to all of provider’s other discovery requests, and provider has not demonstrated any reason for deposition — Provider’s request for unredacted attorney timesheets is denied where insurer is not seeking payment for redacted time entries — Provider is not entitled to discovery of insurer’s communications, invoices, and payments to counsel in other PIP cases or proposals for settlement served by insurer in other PIP cases — Motion to compel mediation is granted

Read More »

ROMAN SILVA ZUNIGA, Plaintiff, v. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Defendants.

26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 637a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2608ZUNIInsurance — Homeowners — Water intrusion — Attorney’s fees — Contingency multiplier — Multiplier permitted in award of fees where liability in case was certain to be contested and evidence showed relevant market required the prospect of multiplier to secure competent counsel — Court’s findings that client was unable to pay hourly fees and could proceed only on pure contingency fee basis also support application of multiplier — Where, from the vantage point of counsel, prospect of recovery was “more likely than not” the court has discretion to award a multiplier of 1 to 1.5

Read More »

BETTER CARE MEDICAL REHAB INC a/a/o Clarence Astorga, Plaintiff, v. INFINITY AUTO INS CO, Defendant.

26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 589c

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2607ASTOInsurance — Personal injury protection — Attorney’s fees — Amount — Contingency risk multiplier — Where evidence indicates that medical provider had no difficulty in obtaining competent counsel and does not support contention that relevant market requires contingency risk multiplier in order to obtain competent counsel, competent substantial evidence does not support award of multiplier

Read More »
Skip to content