Insurance — Homeowners — Attorney’s fees — Prevailing party — Contingency fee multiplier — In determining whether relevant market required contingency fee multiplier to obtain competent counsel, trial court erred in considering plaintiff’s actual difficulty in locating counsel rather than looking at the relevant market itself — Trial court erred in analyzing whether counsel was able to mitigate risk of nonpayment where instead of relying on undisputed evidence that plaintiff could not afford an hourly fee, the trial court relied on the likelihood of success — Likelihood of success is to be considered in determining range of multiplier rather than whether risk of non-payment is mitigated
45 Fla. L. Weekly D1217c
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