Shannon Van Horn v. Nationwide Property and Casualty
436 F. App'x 496
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Class Counsel served as class counsel in a settlement of a nationwide property and casualty insurance class action.
- Settlement created a common fund; a portion was to be paid to Class Counsel as attorneys’ fees and costs.
- District court held a fairness hearing and approved the settlement; class members received up to $199.44 each.
- Class Counsel sought approximately $6.1 million total (fees plus costs); the district court awarded full costs but only $3,179,107.20 in fees.
- Class Counsel appealed, arguing the district court abused its discretion in setting the fee award; the appellate court affirmed.
- The court analyzed hourly rates, lodestar enhancement, and cross-checks under common-fund fee principles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonableness of hourly rates | Class Counsel contends rates were reasonable given experience. | District court found lower rates appropriate based on venue market and supporting evidence. | No abuse; rates within market range and adequately explained. |
| Enhancement multiplier | Class Counsel requested a 1.78 multiplier; district court awarded 1.2. | Enhancement must be reasonable and carefully limited; Perdue guidance applied. | No abuse; district court properly exercised discretion with a 1.2 multiplier. |
| Cross-check via percentage-of-the-fund | District court should use a particular calculation method and avoid errors in application. | Cross-check was optional and permissible; lodestar alone could justify the award. | No abuse; cross-check unnecessary given lodestar sufficiency. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowling v. Pfizer, Inc., 102 F.3d 777 (6th Cir. 1996) (standard of review for attorneys’ fees in district court)
- Gonter v. Hunt Valve Co., Inc., 510 F.3d 610 (6th Cir. 2007) (markets-rate guidance and avoiding misapplication of standards)
- Rawlings v. Prudential-Bache Props., Inc., 9 F.3d 513 (6th Cir. 1993) (lodestar and percentage-method flexibility for class actions)
- Moulton v. U.S. Steel Corp., 581 F.3d 344 (6th Cir. 2009) (need for explanation of fee methodology and factors)
- Geier v. Sundquist, 372 F.3d 784 (6th Cir. 2004) (multipliers and factor analysis in fee determinations)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (Johnson factors and lodestar cross-check guidance)
- Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 130 S. Ct. 1662 (2010) (enhancements should be rare and not duplicative of lodestar factors)