2005

30 Fla. L. Weekly D1125a

Attorney’s fees — Proposal for settlement — Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Plaintiff’s failure to plead and move for attorney’s fees within 30 days of jury verdict did not preclude attorney’s fees award where appellate court reversed final judgment, including amount awarded for fees, thereby requiring trial court to enter new final judgment upon remand — Thirty-day period did not begin to run until entry of new final judgment — Error to award fees for time prior to entry of jury’s verdict where award was entered without notice to insurer and failed to articulate both reasonable amount of hours expended and reasonable hourly rate — No error in amount awarded for work performed subsequent to entry of jury’s verdict, since insurer was on notice of motion for fees, and court determined number of hours reasonably expended and reasonable hourly rate, neither of which were objected to by insurer

30 Fla. L. Weekly D2513e

Contracts — Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Torts — An attorney and client may enter into a single representation agreement which anticipates both a negligence action against tortfeasor and a breach of contract action against client’s insurance carrier and which provides separate agreements as to amount of attorney’s fees which can be awarded for these different actions — When such an agreement exists, attorney’s fees to be awarded for one action cannot be determined by or limited to the amounts that might have been awarded if the parties had brought a different action — Instead, amount of attorney’s fees will be determined based on provisions of the representation agreement relating to the type of action actually at issue — In case at issue, fee agreement between attorney and client clearly provided for an award of a “reasonable fee” to be determined by the court should client prevail in a no-fault action against insurer — Trial court erred in limiting attorney’s fees to a percentage of no-fault recovery

30 Fla. L. Weekly D2648a

Insurance — Automobile liability — Attorney’s fees — Where insurer filed declaratory judgment action to determine its rights and duties under policy, and subsequently settled claim against insured in a settlement that did not include a reservation of rights concerning attorney’s fees and dismissed the declaratory judgment action, insurer was properly held liable for insured’s attorney’s fees, even though insured was convicted of insurance fraud

30 Fla. L. Weekly D552a

Insurance — Life — Attorney’s fees — Where insurer did not pay benefits under life insurance policy within 60 days after receipt of proof of loss forms and related documents, beneficiary filed complaint seeking damages and attorney’s fees 86 days after proof of loss was received by insurer, and insurer sent payment to beneficiary six days after complaint was filed, but before service of process, insurer was liable for payment of attorney’s fees — Payment of benefits constituted substantial equivalent of confession of judgment — Fact that insurer was unaware of lawsuit at time of payment does not defeat insurer’s obligation to pay attorney’s fees — Trial court erred in entering summary judgment finding that insurer was not liable for attorney’s fees

30 Fla. L. Weekly D2719d

Attorney’s fees — Multiplier — Question certified whether, in light of the supreme court’s decision in Sarkis v. Allstate Insurance Company, a multiplier may be applied to enhance an award of attorney’s fees granted under a fee-shifting statute such as section 627.428, Florida Statutes (2002)

30 Fla. L. Weekly D1677b

Attorney’ fees — Insurance — Question certified whether in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Sarkis, a multiplier may be applied to enhance an award of attorney’s fees granted under a fee-shifting statute such as section 627.428, Florida Statutes (2002)

30 Fla. L. Weekly D1434a

Attorney’s fees — Appellate fees — Plaintiff entitled to appellate attorney’s fees reasonably expended in defending issue which raised question regarding entitlement of plaintiff to trial court attorney’s fees

30 Fla. L. Weekly D793a

NOT FINAL VERSION OF OPINION
Subsequent Changes at 30 Fla. L. Weekly D1434a

Insurance — Uninsured motorist — Attorney’s fees — Multiplier — Trial court did not err in using 1.5 multiplier in awarding attorney’s fees to insured who recovered judgment in action against insurer to recover uninsured motorist benefits — 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)? — Insured is not entitled to appellate attorney’s fees incurred in insurer’s appeal of order granting attorney’s fees — Time spent litigating appropriateness of a fee multiplier goes to amount of fees rather than entitlement to fees, and fees are not awardable under section 627.428 for litigating amount of fees — Question certified: Under section 627.428, Florida Statutes, is an insured entitled to recover from its insurer attorney’s fees incurred in successfully litigating entitlement to an attorney’s fee multiplier?

30 Fla. L. Weekly D2762c

Attorney’s fees — Insurance — No abuse of discretion in awarding 2.0 multiplier on attorney’s fee award in action for determination of coverage under policy

30 Fla. L. Weekly D1129a

Insurance — Personal injury protection — Attorney’s fees — Where county court awarded insured attorney’s fees in his successful personal injury protection action against insurer, insurer appealed the fee award to circuit court appellate division, and appeal was dismissed for failure to file initial brief, circuit court departed from essential requirements of law in denying award of appellate attorney’s fees to insured on ground that insured did not prevail on the merits of the appeal — Prevailing party clause in appellate fee portion of section 627.428, which mandates a fee award “in the event of an appeal in which the insured or beneficiary prevails” includes cases in which an insurer commences an appeal, but the appeal is then dismissed without a decision on the merits