USAA Casualty Insurance Co. v. Prime Care Chiropractic Centers, P.A.
93 So. 3d 345
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- USAA appeals a county court final judgment awarding Prime Care attorney’s fees with a contingency risk multiplier.
- The multiplier was based on Prime Care’s claim it had difficulty obtaining competent counsel without the possibility of a multiplier.
- Prime Care sought fees under section 627.428, citing Massie v. Progressive Express Insurance Co. and related Florida standards.
- Evidence at the fee hearing included Prime Care’s corporate representative, its counsel, and an expert on contingency multipliers, Kevin Weiss.
- The county court awarded a 2.0 multiplier but the appellate court found the proof inadequate and reversed, remanding for proceedings consistent with its ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expert testimony alone proves market need | Prime Care argued market need supported by expert testimony. | USAA contends expert testimony alone is insufficient without other competent evidence. | Multiplier invalid without competent, substantial evidence. |
| Whether the market required a multiplier to obtain competent counsel | Massie-like assertion showed market difficulty in securing counsel. | No evidence showed a market-wide need for a multiplier. | No competent evidence that market required multiplier; abuse of discretion. |
| Proper standard of review for multiplier awards | Trial court findings should be upheld given deference to court’s discretion. | Abuse of discretion if not supported by competent evidence. | Abuse of discretion standard applied; evidence insufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- Massie v. Progressive Express Insurance Co., 25 So.3d 584 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (multiplier depends on market need for competent counsel)
- Quanstrom v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 555 So.2d 828 (Fla.1990) (standard for contingency fee multiplier factors)
- Holiday v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance, 864 So.2d 1215 (Fla.5th DCA 2004) (abuse of discretion in fee awards when unsupported by evidence)
- Discovery Experimental & Dev., Inc. v. Department of Health, 824 So.2d 195 (Fla.2d DCA 2002) (abuse of discretion standard for agency-related fee decisions)
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Cedolia, 571 So.2d 1386 (Fla.4th DCA 1990) (contingency fee multiplier review requires competent evidence)
- Sun Bank of Ocala v. Ford, 564 So.2d 1078 (Fla.1990) (market evidence needed to justify multiplier)
- Allstate Insurance Co. v. Materiale, 787 So.2d 173 (Fla.2d DCA 2001) (no multiplier without market support)