Snider v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.
297 Kan. 157
| Kan. | 2013Background
- Snider sued after American Family denied his claim under a policy including contractor's equipment coverage; district court granted summary judgment for American Family.
- The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded to determine attorney fees under K.S.A. 40-908 and Rule 7.07(b).
- On remand, the district court awarded Snider $5,000 in district-court fees; the appellate fees issue was unresolved due to Snider's failure to file a Rule 7.07(b) motion.
- The Court of Appeals later awarded Snider $19,500 for district-court work plus $155 costs, and excluded appellate fees on Snider I; Snider II awarded $11,554.79 in appellate fees and $754.79 costs.
- Snider sought additional appellate fees in this Supreme Court petition under Rule 7.07(b) for Snider I, Snider II, and related proceedings, arguing Evans and Rule 7.07(b) should be interpreted to allow recovery in certain statutory contexts.
- The majority affirm the Court of Appeals, holding Rule 7.07(b) and Evans control appellate-fee awards where the district court had authority to award fees; the court denies enhanced appellate-fee relief and bars Fees-for-fee recovery in this posture.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Evans and Rule 7.07(b) bar appellate fees when district court did not award fees | Snider argues Evans requires appellate-determined fees and that the district court’s remand had authority to award fees thus allowing appellate fees. | American Family contends Rule 7.07(b) governs preservation of appellate fees and Evans applies to require timely motion; failure bars recovery. | Rule 7.07(b) applies; Evans controls and lack of timely motion bars appellate fees. |
| Whether the Court of Appeals creatively overruled Evans or misapplied 40-908 in Snider I | Snider contends Evans should be overruled or limited to district-win cases. | American Family maintains Evans and 40-908 authority were properly applied by the Court of Appeals. | Evans and 40-908 properly applied; Berkshire- and related arguments rejected. |
| Whether Snider was entitled to appellate fees for Snider I or II on remand | Snider asserts appellate fees were appropriate following remand under 40-908 and Rule 7.07(b). | American Family argues no appellate-fee entitlement for Snider I due to lack of timely Rule 7.07(b) filing; Snider II fees limited by reasonableness. | Appellate fees for Snider I are barred; appellate fees for Snider II are permitted but subject to reasonableness review. |
| Whether the Court of Appeals properly calculated Snider II appellate fees | Snider claims the Court of Appeals misapplied the eight KRPC 1.5(a) factors and overestimated hours. | American Family contends the Court of Appeals reasonably exercised discretion and properly limited hours. | Court of Appeals’ calculation upheld; award reasonable under KRPC 1.5(a) factors. |
Key Cases Cited
- Evans v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 249 Kan. 248 (1991) (civil appellate attorney fees determined by appellate court)
- Johnson v. Westhoff Sand Co., 281 Kan. 930 (2006) (reasonableness of attorney fees; eight-factor test)
- Lattner v. Federal Union Ins. Co., 160 Kan. 472 (1945) (attorney fees provisions in insurance-action context)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (reasonableness and degree of success in fee awards; multiplier considerations)
- In re Jean, 496 U.S. 154 (1990) (supplemental fees; fees-for-fee considerations under fee-shifting statutes)