Background
Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company appealed a fee award entered after settlement in a property insurance dispute. The trial court awarded the insured a lodestar of $389,362.50, enhanced by a 2.5 contingency risk multiplier for a total of $973,406.25, plus $138,658.25 in costs. The costs included $42,658.25 for two expert witnesses retained for trial preparation who did not testify.
Universal challenged the multiplier as unsupported by evidence and objected to costs for non-testifying experts. The insured’s fee expert had testified that the case was risky due to late notice of the claim and that no lawyer would accept it without a multiplier, but did not opine on the availability of competent counsel in the relevant market or whether such counsel would decline the case without enhancement.
The Court’s Holding
The Third District affirmed the lodestar computation but reversed the multiplier award. Under the Quanstrom standard, a trial court applying a contingency multiplier must present evidence addressing three factors: whether the relevant market requires a multiplier to obtain competent counsel, whether the attorney mitigated the risk of nonpayment, and whether relevant Rowe factors support enhancement. The court found the trial court’s findings on the first Quanstrom factor—whether the market requires a multiplier—were unsupported by the record. Although the insured’s fee expert opined that “nobody” would take the case without a multiplier, the expert never testified that competent lawyers did not exist in the market or that they would refuse the case without enhancement. The trial court itself acknowledged that numerous other firms in south Florida practice property insurance law and could have obtained some recovery. Accordingly, the evidence did not support imposition of the 2.5 multiplier or, on this record, any multiplier at all.
The court also reversed the award of $42,658.25 in costs for non-testifying experts. Florida Statute § 92.231(2) authorizes costs only for “[a]ny expert or skilled witness who shall have testified in any cause.” The trial court made no findings that preparation fees for the non-testifying experts were reasonably necessary for trial or that the opposing party’s conduct justified such an exception. Costs are taxable only where authorized by statute or rule.
Key Takeaways
- Contingency fee multipliers require competent, substantial evidence supporting the specific Quanstrom factors; general assertions that an attorney was skilled and willing to try the case do not address market availability of competent counsel.
- An expert’s opinion that “nobody” would take a case without a multiplier is insufficient without testimony that competent counsel actually does not exist in the relevant market or would categorically refuse the case without enhancement.
- Expert witness costs are taxable only where authorized by statute; costs for non-testifying experts are not authorized under § 92.231(2) absent special findings of trial necessity and mitigating circumstances.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies and tightens the evidentiary burden for imposing contingency fee multipliers in Florida. Trial courts must move beyond evidence of attorney skill and case risk to affirmative proof that the relevant market lacks willing, competent counsel without enhancement. The ruling prevents multiplier awards resting solely on expert speculation and requires specific findings linking market conditions to the need for the multiplier.
The opinion also reaffirms that taxable costs are limited by statute. Trial courts cannot bootstrap expert preparation fees into costs awards without explicit statutory authorization or findings of exceptional necessity, even when experts provided valuable trial preparation. This protects the finality of cost awards and prevents fee-shifting mechanisms from expanding beyond their statutory scope.