Business Alliance Ins. Co. v. CelisBusiness Alliance Ins. Co. v. Celis
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 2017, Business Alliance issued a contractor‘s bond to Axcel Construction. In conjunction with the bond, Alex Celis, doing business as Axcel Construction (collectively, Celis), indemnified Business Alliance for costs incurred, including “attorney‘s fees ... for which the surety ... incur by reason of such suretyship whether or not the surety shall have paid the same at the time of the demand.”
A homeowner filed a construction defect case against Celis in July, 2020. Eight months later, Business Alliance filed a cross-complaint for breach of the indemnification agreement against Celis. In a June 2024 order, the court found Celis was bound by the indemnification agreement and that it included an attorney‘s fee provision. The court ruled in favor of Business Alliance for the stipulated amount of $13,555.36, representing attorney‘s fees and expenses incurred through October 4, 2021. In entering judgment in favor of Business Alliance for that amount nearly two months later, the court further provided that Business Alliance was “entitled to recover its costs and attorney‘s fees as permitted by the [i]ndemnification [a]greement or as otherwise provided by law.”
DISCUSSION
The trial court erred when it found Business Alliance presented “duplicative” requests for attorney‘s fees. The evidence shows that the award of fees to Business Alliance in the August 2024 judgment was based on work performed up to and including October 4, 2021. In contrast, the fees Business Alliance sought in its January 2025 motion were for work performed after that date.
Specifically, in August 2024, Business Alliance was awarded $13,555.36 in attorney‘s fees and expenses for work performed from January 3, 2020 to October 4, 2021. Below is a screenshot from the “Matter Summary Report” that served as the basis of the August 2024 award, showing a $13,555.36 total billable and expense amount from January 3, 2020 to October 4, 2021:
Consistent with this billing record, Business Alliance‘s principal attorney declared that the judgment “covered fees/costs incurred from litigation inception until plaintiff‘s dismissal of [Business Alliance from the underlying construction defect case] on 10/6/2021.”
In January 2025, Business Alliance filed a motion seeking an additional award of $17,002.44 in attorney‘s fees and costs for work performed after the time period covered by the initial award—from October 26, 2021 to June 14, 2024. A supporting (but belatedly filed) attorney declaration specified that because the judgment had already awarded fees and costs through October 6, 2021, the motion “now would cover fees/costs incurred to enforce the Indemnity Agreement from that date forward.” (Italics added.) Below is a screenshot of the caption from the detailed billing records Business Alliance submitted in support of its January 2025 motion, showing time entries for work performed from October 26, 2021, to June 14, 2024:
Below is another screenshot from the billing records that Business Alliance submitted in support of its January 2025 motion, showing the caption on the detailed expenses spreadsheet for $1,202.85 in filing fees and service costs from October 26, 2021, to June 14, 2024:
Also submitted in support of its January 2025 motion was a billing statement showing $783.59 in copy and vendor expenses in 2024 and 2025.
Consistent with this evidence, Business Alliance‘s principal attorney declared that the firm incurred $16,304 in attorney‘s fees “starting when the [underlying construction defect] complaint was dismissed as to [Business Alliance]” in October 2021. According to Business Alliance, these are “fees incurred post-trial and in connection with the severed cross-complaint proceedings, which are distinct from the fees previously awarded as damages” in the August 2024 judgment.
Celis is thus incorrect to argue that Business Alliance “submitted the same billing invoices from prior counsel that made up the fees incurred that supported the underlying $13,555.36 award.” Clearly, the billing records the court relied on for its August 2024 judgment cover different fees, expenses and a different time period than the billing records Business Alliance submitted in support of its January 2025 motion. Additionally, it is inaccurate to say that Business Alliance “participated in no further litigation” after it was “dismissed from the underlying case” in October 2021. Although dismissed from the construction defect case, the evidence shows Business Alliance was actively involved in “post-trial proceedings” and the “severed cross-complaint proceedings,” including participating in discovery, executing stipulations , and preparing and filing a motion for summary judgment.
Thus, unlike the trial court, we find no evidence that “a portion of the fees sought by [Business Alliance] on this motion are duplicative of those
DISPOSITION
The postjudgment order granting in part and denying in part Business Alliance‘s motion for attorney‘s fees is reversed insofar as the trial court reduced the award after finding some fees Business Alliance sought were duplicative of previously awarded fees. The matter is remanded with instructions for the trial court to redetermine the award consistent with the principles expressed in this opinion. Appellant is entitled to its costs on appeal. (
DATO, J.
WE CONCUR:
O‘ROURKE, Acting P. J.
KELETY, J.