Strawn v. Farmers Insurance
297 P.3d 439
Or.2013Background
- Strawn sought appellate attorney fees after prevailing on contract and fraud claims in a class action against Farmers Insurance Co. of Oregon and related entities.
- Case generated two fee sources: a statutory fee-shifting award under ORS 742.061(1) for contract claims and a common-fund award from punitive damages for fraud.
- Trial and Court of Appeals already awarded substantial fees; this Court reviews amount and apportionment on review.
- Court considers lodestar and percent-of-fund/blended approaches due to hybrid nature of fee awards.
- Court apportions fees: 35% from Farmers (fee-shifting) and 65% from punitive damages (common fund); no multiplier applied.
- Decisions address post-judgment interest, class incentive fee, and class administration fees
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Method for determining fees in a hybrid fee case | Strawn argues for lodestar cross-checked by percent-of-fund | Farmers argues against excessive hours and multipliers | Blended approach permitted; cross-check via percent-of-fund used |
| Whether a multiplier for contingency is warranted | Contingency should justify a multiplier under ORS 20.075(2)(h) | Multiplier not warranted given reasonable lodestar and fund size | No multiplier; lodestar reasonable without enhancement |
| Apportionment between fee-shifting and common-fund awards | Fees should be allocated to both sources as appropriate | Allocation proposed by Strawn disputed | Apportionment approved with adjustments; some hours to fee-shifting and rest to common fund |
| Authority to award fees for certiorari work and post-decision prejudgment interest | Fees for certiorari work and prejudgment interest may be awarded | Authority contested; interest not awarded on appellate fees | Fees for certiorari awarded from common fund; prejudgment interest denied for appellate fees |
| Whether to grant a class incentive fee on appeal | Incentive fee warranted to compensate class representative | Incentive fees controversial; issue on appeal not settled | Award of $5,000 incentive fee from punitive damages upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Lindy Bros. Builders, Inc. v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., 487 F.2d 161 (3d Cir. 1973) (lodestar limitations and preference for percent-of-fund in some contexts)
- Chalmers v. Oregon Auto. Ins. Co., 263 Or 449 (1972) (contingent-fee crediting and offset when fee-shifting and contingent fees interact)
- Honeywell v. Sterling Furniture Co., 310 Or 206 (1990) (common-fund and fee-shifting interplay; fees may be paid from both fund and award source)
- Strunk v. PERB, 341 Or 175 (2006) (common-fund doctrine; equitable basis for fee awards and offsets)
- Goddard v. Farmers Ins. Co., 344 Or 232 (2008) (reprehensibility and punitive damages context supporting fee considerations)
- McDowell Welding & Pipefitting v. US Gypsum Co., 345 Or 272 (2008) (prejudgment interest basis and related remedies)
- Estate of Wesley E. Smith v. Ware, 307 Or 478 (1989) (fee-shifting and common-fund principles in complex actions)