The trial court's use of a multiplier in awarding fees to the insured was affirmed by the Florida Court of Appeal. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Laguerre, 2018 Fla. App. LEXIS 11794 (Fla. Ct. App. Aug. 22, 2018).
Following Hurricane Wilma, the insured made a claim for wind damage to her insurer, Citizens. Citizens investigated the claim and paid $8,400.77. The insured then demanded an appraisal and submitted an appraisal estimate in the amount of $60,256.79. There was no response to the appraisal demand.
The insured filed suit against Citizens alleging it breached the insurance policy by failing to participate in the appraisal process. Two motions for summary judgment filed by Citizens were denied. The insured's motion to compel appraisal was granted. The appraisal umpire issued an award in the amount of $27,367.63.
Citizens agreed that the insured was entitled to attorneys' fees under the state statute. A hearing was conducted on the issue of the lodestar amount and whether a multiplier was justified. The insured presented the expert testimony of Roniel Rodriguez, who testified that these types of cases had become very difficult. He stated, "Insureds have a difficult time finding qualified and capable lawyers because of the risk that's involved." Rodriguez testified that a multiplier of 1.6 or 1.7 would be appropriate in this type of case. Citizens cross-examined Rodriguez only with regard to his testimony on the reasonableness of the hourly rate sought by the insured's attorney.
Citizens' expert, Dawn Jayma, testified that the insured's attorneys had thousands of similar cases and that this was not a complex case that warranted a multiplier. The trial court applied an hourly rate of $325.00 and found that a reasonable number of hours expended on the case was 185. The trial court also applied a 2.0 multiplier, determining that a fee multiplier was necessary to obtain competent counsel. After applying the 2.0 multiplier to the lodestar amount, the trial court awarded $120,250.00 in attorneys' fees.
On appeal, Citizens argued the 2.0 multiplier was not warranted because: (1) there was no evidence the insured had difficulty obtaining competent counsel; (2) the results obtained did not warrant a multiplier; and (3) the complexity of the issues could not be a basis for awarding a multiplier.The appellate court affirmed the trial court's award of the multiplier. The court found the testimony of Rodriguez regarding the multiplier persuasive. This testimony was unchallenged by Citizens. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in applying the multiplier.
