Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Are Available to Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Blog
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Elisabeth K. Eubanks
  • Links
  • Contact Us

May 25, 2018 by Jennifer Kennedy

Insurance — Attorney’s fees — Insured prevailing in action against insurer — Trial court did not err in applying contingency fee multiplier to attorney’s fee award

43 Fla. L. Weekly D1140b

Insurance — Attorney’s fees — Insured prevailing in action against insurer — Trial court did not err in applying contingency fee multiplier to attorney’s fee award

SAWGRASS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. TERRY MONE AND DIANE MONE, Appellees. 5th District. Case No. 5D15-3061. May 18, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County, Dennis Craig, Judge. Counsel: Jack R. Reiter and Robert D. Peters, of GrayRobinson, P.A., Miami, for Appellant. Mark A. Nation and Paul W. Pritchard, of The Nation Law Firm, Longwood, for Appellees.

UPON REMAND FROM
THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT
[Prior Report at 41 Fla. L. Weekly D2044a]

(PER CURIAM.) Our prior opinion of September 2, 2016, was disapproved by the Florida Supreme Court “to the extent it is inconsistent with [the Florida Supreme] Court’s opinion in Joyce v. Federated Nat’l Ins. Co., 228 So. 3d 1122 (Fla. 2017),” and the case was remanded to this court “for instructions not inconsistent with th[e] Court’s opinion in Joyce.” See Mone v. Sawgrass Mut. Ins. Co., 43 Fla. L. Weekly S185 (Fla. Apr. 20, 2018). Upon reconsideration, we affirm the final judgment awarding attorney’s fees, including the trial court’s application of a multiplier to the attorney’s fees award. Based upon Appellees’ prior concession of error, we reverse the award of $26,918.43 in court costs regarding the services provided by two of Appellees’ expert witnesses, Nettles & Associates and Reliable Field Services of Central Florida, Inc. On remand, the trial court is directed to strike this amount from the final judgment.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED, with instructions. (COHEN, C.J., LAMBERT, J., and LEMONIDIS, R.C., Associate Judge, concur.)

* * *

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Insurance — Homeowners — All-risk policy — Coverage — Cracking damage to home caused by blasting vibrations from nearby rock quarry — Exclusions — Earth or soil movement — Wear and tear, marking, deterioration, settling, shrinking, bulging, or expansion — Concurrent causes — Trial court did not err in denying insurer’s motion for directed verdict based on policy’s exclusion of coverage for earth sinking, rising, or shifting or soil movement resulting from blasting — Insurer’s position was based upon mischaracterization of testimony by insureds’ expert, who was steadfast in his opinion that none of the damage to home resulted from soil or earth movement, but was instead the result of shock waves from blasting that caused the house to shake — Based upon competing expert testimony, jury could have reasonably concluded that it was shock waves, not soil or earth movement, that caused damage — Jury instructions — Covered and excluded perils — Concurrent cause doctrine — Trial court did not err by instructing jury that land shock waves from blasting in combination with wear and tear, marring, deterioration, settling, shrinking, bulging, or expansion was not excluded under policy — Although policy’s earth movement exclusion contained an explicit anti-concurrent cause provision, this provision would have come into play only if jury had first determined that one of the causes of damage was earth movement — Judgment in favor of insureds affirmed
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Discovery — Work product — Claims files — Appeals — Certiorari — Trial court did not depart from essential requirements of the law by compelling insurer to produce documents from its claims and underwriting files — Documents in claims and underwriting files are not automatically work product — Insurer’s assertion of work-product privilege was overly broad, and insurer did not argue or prove that the requested documents were prepared in anticipation of litigation
  • Wrongful death — Medical malpractice — Vicarious liability — Punitive damages — Amendment of complaint — Allegation that defendant, through its president, committed acts of intentional misconduct or gross negligence by assigning a nurse practitioner to provide after-hours care to a patient with highly complex problems that were beyond nurse practitioner’s permissible scope of practice — Trial court erred by granting plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint to assert claim for punitive damages — Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable basis for award of punitive damages based on intentional conduct where evidence was insufficient to show that defendant’s president either knew or otherwise intended for nurse practitioner to independently order medical treatment for patient outside the scope of nurse practitioner’s practice without consulting president — Furthermore, there was insufficient evidence demonstrating that defendant’s president condoned or ratified nurse practitioner’s independent treatment with actual knowledge of a high probability that doing so would result in additional harm or death to patient — Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable basis for award of punitive damages based on gross negligence where facts of case did not show that defendant, through its president or nurse practitioner, evinced a reckless or conscious disregard of or indifference to human life
  • Torts — Negligent hiring — Punitive damages — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law in granting motion to amend complaint to add claim for punitive damages against employer of driver who crashed company car into plaintiff’s vehicle — Proffered evidence was not sufficient to establish reasonable basis for finding that defendant was grossly negligent when it allegedly hired employee without conducting adequate pre-employment screening, obtaining a driving and criminal history, and confirming that employee held valid driver’s license — Proffered evidence was either not directly related to allegation that employer was grossly negligent or sufficiently refuted by defendant
  • Torts — Negligent hiring — Punitive damages — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law in granting motion to amend complaint to add claim for punitive damages against employer of driver who crashed company car into plaintiff’s vehicle — Proffered evidence was not sufficient to establish reasonable basis for finding that defendant was grossly negligent when it allegedly hired employee without conducting adequate pre-employment screening, obtaining a driving and criminal history, and confirming that employee held valid driver’s license — Proffered evidence was either not directly related to allegation that employer was grossly negligent or sufficiently refuted by defendant

Blog Archives

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2023 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982