2004

29 Fla. L. Weekly D278a

Insurance — Attorney’s fees — Contingency risk multiplier — Trial court properly applied contingency risk multiplier in awarding attorney’s fees to one insured who brought successful suit against insurer to recover fire damages under homeowner’s policy upon finding that likelihood of insured prevailing was less than 50 percent and that very few attorneys in area would have taken case without potential for multiplier — Trial court erred in refusing to apply contingency risk multiplier in awarding fees to other insured who brought successful action against insurer on ground that multiplier was not permissible under contingency fee agreement between insured and her attorney which provided that insured would pay attorney the greater of the statutory fee or the contingency fee — Question certified: In light of the supreme court’s decision in Sarkis, may a multiplier be applied to enhance an award of attorney’s fees granted under a fee-shifting statute such as section 627.428, Florida Statutes (2002)

29 Fla. L. Weekly D1974b

Insurance — Attorney’s fees — Question certified: Under section 627.428 is an insured entitled to recover from its insurer attorney’s fees incurred in successfully litigating entitlement to an attorney’s fee multiplier?

NOT FINAL VERSION OF OPINION
Subsequent Changes at 29 Fla. L. Weekly D1974b

29 Fla. L. Weekly D1523a

Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Circuit court departed from essential requirements of law by affirming county court’s order allowing attorney’s fees under section 627.428 for time spent litigating necessity of an attorney’s fee multiplier

29 Fla. L. Weekly D1821c

Insurance — Health — Arbitration — Validity of arbitration clause in policy which does not provide for award of attorney’s fees

29 Fla. L. Weekly D1310b

Insurance — Arbitration — Trial court erred in denying insurers’ application for arbitration of coverage dispute under provision of insurance policies on the ground that McCarran-Ferguson Act precluded applicability of Federal Arbitration Act because the arbitration clause merely permits an award of attorney’s fees to a successful insured in an action against an insurer, whereas section 627.428(1), Florida Statutes, requires an award of attorney’s fees to a successful insured — Permissive attorney’s fees provision of arbitration clause does not, within the meaning of McCarran-Ferguson Act “invalidate, impair, or supersede” section 627.428(1) — Arbitration clause is not rendered unenforceable under the McCarran-Ferguson Act because of its preclusion of an award of punitive damages — Section 624.155, Florida Statutes (2003), is not a law regulating insurance to which the Act might apply

29 Fla. L. Weekly D2078b

Insurance — Discovery — Appraisal — Where appraisal clause provided that if appraisers cannot agree on an umpire, either may request that selection be made by court, and parties went before trial court pursuant to petition for selection of umpire after parties were not able to agree on an umpire, there was no need or justification for deposition of party’s appraiser — Trial court improperly denied motion for protective order

29 Fla. L. Weekly D1242a

Insurance — Property — Theft — Error to grant summary judgment in favor of insurer based upon alleged misrepresentation in application for insurance that insured’s business premises were equipped with “central station burglary alarm” where there was disputed issue of material fact concerning whether any misrepresentation was made — Affidavits and other documents relied upon by insurer conflicted with insured’s deposition testimony that he had not misrepresented nature of his security system when applying for insurance policy

29 Fla. L. Weekly D659e

Appeals — Jurisdiction — Insurance — Order granting or denying appraisal is not appealable as an order involving entitlement to arbitration — Appeal from order denying insurer’s motion for appraisal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

NOT FINAL VERSION OF OPINION
Subsequent Changes at 29 Fla. L. Weekly D2026f

29 Fla. L. Weekly D1751c

Insurance — Homeowners — Appraisal — Appeals — Non-final orders — Order denying motion to compel appraisal under homeowner’s policy is not appealable because it does not qualify as an order that determines entitlement to arbitration — Certiorari review is not available because there has been no showing that trial court departed from essential requirements of law in denying motion to compel appraisal or that denial of motion will result in irreparable injury

29 Fla. L. Weekly D2026f