Sunshine State Insurance v. Davide
117 So. 3d 1142
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Davide filed wind-damage insurance claims with Sunshine after Hurricane Katrina (2005) for his Miami home.
- An appraisal award was issued on November 2, 2006 by the insured’s appraiser and the neutral Umpire; Sunshine deducted depreciation from the award.
- Sunshine’s November 28, 2006 payment of the appraisal award followed Sunshine’s unilateral depreciation deduction.
- Davide sued on March 2, 2007 seeking breach of contract, bad faith, and to confirm the appraisal award.
- Sunshine paid the depreciation amount on April 4, 2007; numerous motions followed over the next year, including entitlement to fees for recovering depreciation.
- At a February 11, 2008 hearing, the court awarded Davide attorney’s fees and costs for recovering the depreciation, with an evidentiary hearing yielding a 150-hour award at $450/hour plus a 2.0 multiplier (total around $138,000); Sunshine appealed and the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether hours claimed were unnecessary or duplicative. | Davide sought 225 hours; court reduced to 150 hours. | Sunshine argues hours were unnecessary/duplicative. | No abuse of discretion; 150 hours supported by expert testimony and detailed findings. |
| Whether hours tied to unresolved count III (bad faith) were compensable. | Fees for pursuing bad faith were claimed. | Hours related to unresolved count III should be excluded. | Court deducted hours solely related to unresolved count III; remaining hours compensable. |
| Whether the multiplier applied to the fees was proper. | Multiplier should reflect risk and complexity. | Standard factors govern, multiplier permissible. | Multiplier within Rowe framework; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla. 1985) (establishes lodestar plus potential multiplier framework and detailed findings requirement)
- Standard Guaranty Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So.2d 828 (Fla. 1990) (modifies Rowe; governs multipliers and fee determinations)
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1980) (preserves deference to trial court; standard of review for discretionary rulings)
- Federated Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Planes, 305 So.2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) (case cited for standards of review of trial court findings in fee awards)
- Hill v. Coplan Pipe & Supply Co., 296 So.2d 567 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) (discretion in fee determinations; credibility determinations deferential standard)
- Universal Beverages Holdings, Inc. v. Merkin, 902 So.2d 288 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (affirms deference to trial court in fee decisions)