Volino v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company
1:21-cv-06243
| S.D.N.Y. | Mar 20, 2025Background
- The court held a final approval hearing for a class action settlement and approved the settlement on March 7, 2025.
- Class Counsel requested $16 million in attorneys’ fees (33% of the settlement) and $342,766.26 in litigation expenses, plus $10,000 service awards for each of seven class representatives.
- The court evaluated the reasonableness of the requested attorneys’ fees using both percentage-of-fund and lodestar methods, referencing empirical data and prior caselaw benchmarks.
- Service awards for class representatives were scrutinized under recent Second Circuit guidance, considering both the nature and extent of their contributions.
- The court ultimately reduced both the fee award percentage and the individual service awards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amount of attorneys’ fees | 33% award is typical and justified | Higher than average | Reduced to 28% ($13.44M), reflecting case complexity |
| Percentage method appropriateness | Favors benchmark near 33% | Should reflect norms | Court uses 25% as empirical benchmark, adjusts upward |
| Lodestar multiplier reasonableness | 2.85 multiplier is fair | Multiplier too high | 2.45 multiplier is reasonable and within norms |
| Service awards for representatives | $10k each is justified by effort | Excessive/unsupported | Reduced to $3,000 plus substantiated losses |
Key Cases Cited
- Goldberger v. Integrated Res., Inc., 209 F.3d 43 (2d Cir. 2000) (sets out factors for evaluating attorneys’ fee requests in class actions)
- Moses v. N.Y. Times Co., 79 F.4th 235 (2d Cir. 2023) (emphasizes relief actually received by class in fee award analysis)
- Fikes Wholesale, Inc. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 62 F.4th 704 (2d Cir. 2023) (questions the propriety of service awards and provides factors for assessment)