Atlanta Casualty Companies v. Anites

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Atlanta Casualty Companies v. Anites

753 So. 2d 657, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2281, 2000 WL 257146

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 8, 2000

DocketNo. 4D99-1418

StatusPublished

This text of 753 So. 2d 657 (Atlanta Casualty Companies v. Anites) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Atlanta Casualty Companies v. Anites, 753 So. 2d 657, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2281, 2000 WL 257146 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals from an order awarding attorney’s fees on the ground that the trial court erred in applying a contingency risk multiplier where the requirements for such an award as set forth in Standard Guar. Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So.2d 828 (Fla.1990), were not met.

The record on appeal contains sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s appli[658]*658cation of the contingency risk multiplier. Therefore, we find that the trial court did not err in the amount of fees it awarded. However, we find that the trial court erred by not setting forth the specific findings as required by Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985), and we must remand for the entry of an order complete with findings as required by Rowe. See, e.g., Abdalla v. Southwind, Inc., 561 So.2d 468 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).

AFFIRMED in part and REMANDED.

GUNTHER, TAYLOR and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals from an order awarding attorney’s fees on the ground that the trial court erred in applying a contingency risk multiplier where the requirements for such an award as set forth in Standard Guar. Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So.2d 828 (Fla.1990), were not met.

The record on appeal contains sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s appli[658]*658cation of the contingency risk multiplier. Therefore, we find that the trial court did not err in the amount of fees it awarded. However, we find that the trial court erred by not setting forth the specific findings as required by Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985), and we must remand for the entry of an order complete with findings as required by Rowe. See, e.g., Abdalla v. Southwind, Inc., 561 So.2d 468 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).

AFFIRMED in part and REMANDED.

GUNTHER, TAYLOR and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

753 So. 2d 657, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2281, 2000 WL 257146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atlanta-casualty-companies-v-anites-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack