Florida Appeals Court Reverses Attorney Fee Award, Favoring Universal Property & Casualty
By Matthew Sellers February 25, 2025
Florida’s ongoing battle with attorney fees continues to impact the insurance landscape. Aggressive litigation by plaintiffs has been cited as a major contributor to high insurance premiums across various coverage types in the state. Governor Ron DeSantis has gone so far as to label Florida a “judicial hellhole,” advocating for changes to protect the state’s economy and its residents from what he views as predatory lawsuits.
In a legal win for insurance companies, the Third District Court of Appeal of Florida recently reversed a trial court’s ruling involving attorney fees. The case in question pitted Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company against policyholder Abel Medero.
The origins of this case trace back to a 2019 water damage claim filed by Medero against Universal. Universal, which maintains a network of over 10,000 independent agents, admitted coverage and paid for the damages, but a dispute arose concerning the appropriate dollar amount. After extensive litigation, the parties reached a settlement, though they remained at odds over the amount of attorney’s fees owed to Medero’s counsel.
Initially, the trial court penalized Universal for failing to comply with court orders, preventing them from presenting evidence related to the attorney’s fees. Medero’s legal representation sought a lodestar fee award (calculated as hours multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate and a multiplier), including a $150 hourly rate increase and a 1.8 contingency fee multiplier. The trial court approved both requests without providing specific factual justifications.
Universal appealed the fee award, arguing that the trial court erred in approving the increased hourly rate and the contingency multiplier without adequate support. The appellate court agreed, determining that the trial court hadn’t provided the specific findings necessary under Florida Supreme Court precedents established in Rowe and Quanstrom, which outline the factors courts must consider when determining the appropriateness of attorney’s fee awards and multipliers. The appellate court noted that Medero’s expert witness failed to present concrete evidence demonstrating a need for a multiplier to secure competent legal counsel in the Miami-Dade legal market. Furthermore, the court found no justification for the $150 per hour rate increase beyond the expert’s opinion.
Consequently, the Third District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision, remanding the case for a recalculation of attorney’s fees. This recalculation must exclude the $150 per-hour rate increase and the 1.8 contingency fee multiplier. The ruling underscores the requirement for trial courts to provide detailed justification when awarding attorney’s fees beyond contractual agreements, ensuring such awards align with established legal standards.
The ruling underscores the requirement for trial courts to provide detailed justification when awarding attorney’s fees.
