Hiscox Dedicated Corporate Member, Ltd. v. Matrix Group Limited, Inc., 8:09-cv-02465

Defendants Matrix Group Limited, Inc. and Louis Orloff moved for an award of attorneys’ fees under Florida fee-shifting statutes; Plaintiff Hiscox Dedicated Corporate Member, Ltd. opposed.
After an 11-day trial, the jury found in Defendants’ favor on fraud, misrepresentation, and alarm-suspension issues, and awarded damages totaling $2,715,100.00; remittitur reduced Damages to the Building portion.
The Court denied Hiscox’s Rule 50 motion and granted remittitur, entering an Amended Judgment in Defendants’ favor of $2,577,691.75.
Defendants sought fees from four firms totaling roughly $2.81 million, later narrowed by the Court after excluding non-compensable items; the Court conducted a lodestar analysis under Florida law.
The Court applied a 20% across-the-board reduction for block billing, vague entries, clerical tasks, and fruitless strategies, found no multiplier warranted, and awarded $2,218,671.60 in attorneys’ fees.
The final order reflects a detailed, multi-firm fee computation and a comprehensive reduction after reviewing hours and rates.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Florida fee-shifting statute awards apply to prevailing insureds.	Hiscox contends Defendants are entitled to fees under §627.428.	Defendants rely on statute and public-policy factors supporting a fee award.	Yes; fee shifting applies to prevailing insureds under Florida law.
Whether the lodestar amount properly computed hours and rates.	Hiscox argues hours and rates are inflated and block-billed.	Defendants claim reasonable hours and rates; any adjustments to lodestar are warranted.	Court reduced lodestar by 20% due to block billing and vagueness.
Whether a contingency multiplier should be applied.	Defendants seek a multiplier to reflect risk and contingent fee arrangement.	Multiplier necessary to attract competent counsel and reflect risk.	No multiplier; lodestar amount suffices.
Whether clerical work and non-attorney tasks may be billed; whether certain tasks were recoverable.	Clerical and non-legal tasks are non-recoverable overhead.	Some tasks are compensable; others should be reduced.	Disallowed $37,965 for clerical specialists; across-the-board reductions for clerical tasks.
Whether the amount awarded should be adjusted further for unsuccessful strategies.	Defendants’ unsuccessful strategies warrant reduction.	Strategic decisions merited consideration.	20% reduction to account for fruitless litigation strategies.

Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87 (U.S. 1989) (factors for reasonableness of fees; base lodestar influences multiplier analysis)
Holiday v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 864 So.2d 121 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (tort/contract category; allow multiplier where appropriate)
Loranger v. Stierheim, 10 F.3d 776 (11th Cir. 1994) (across-the-board reductions permissible when time records are voluminous)
Duckworth v. Whisenant, 97 F.3d 1393 (11th Cir. 1996) (deducting hours for fruitless or excess litigation activity)
Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Tropical Shipping & Constr. Co., 254 F.3d 987 (11th Cir. 2001) (lodestar serves fee-shifting statute goals; discourage contesting valid claims)
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Palma, 629 So.2d 830 (Fla. 1993) (entitlement to fees and related disputes governed by fee-shifting statutes)