DEPARTMENT OF ADMIN., OFFICE OF STATE EMPLOYEES'INS. v. Ganson

566 So. 2d 791, 1990 WL 132929
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedSeptember 13, 1990
Docket75396
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 566 So. 2d 791 (DEPARTMENT OF ADMIN., OFFICE OF STATE EMPLOYEES'INS. v. Ganson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
DEPARTMENT OF ADMIN., OFFICE OF STATE EMPLOYEES'INS. v. Ganson, 566 So. 2d 791, 1990 WL 132929 (Fla. 1990).

Opinion

566 So.2d 791 (1990)

DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE OF STATE EMPLOYEES' INSURANCE, Petitioner,
v.
Terri J. GANSON, Respondent.

No. 75396.

Supreme Court of Florida.

September 13, 1990.

Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Gen. Counsel, Dept. of Admin., Tallahassee, for petitioner.

Kenneth D. Kranz of Eric B. Tilton, P.A., Tallahassee, for respondent.

GRIMES, Justice.

Pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution, we accepted jurisdiction in Ganson v. Department of Administration, 554 So.2d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), to resolve conflict with Standard Guaranty Insurance Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So.2d 828 (Fla. 1990).

*792 Ganson successfully litigated a claim for state health insurance benefits in which the district court of appeal ordered a hearing to determine an appropriate attorney's fee. Ganson v. Department of Admin., 554 So.2d 516 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).[*] The hearing officer submitted a report, which the district court adopted in toto. In that report, the hearing officer recognized that there was a split of authority on the issue but concluded that a contingency-risk multiplier was required because there was a contingent-fee agreement between the client and her attorney.

A few weeks after the district court of appeal affirmed the fee award, we issued Quanstrom, which held that the multiplier is not automatically required in contingent-fee cases. Quanstrom, 555 So.2d at 831. Therefore, the opinion below is incorrect and must be quashed. We remand for reconsideration in light of Quanstrom.

It is so ordered.

SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, EHRLICH, BARKETT and KOGAN, JJ., concur.

NOTES

[*] That decision is not under review here.

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

Related

Procacci Commercial Realty v. DHRS
690 So. 2d 603 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
Diaz v. SantaFe Healthcare, Inc.
642 So. 2d 765 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Palma
629 So. 2d 830 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1993)
Weaver v. School Bd. of Leon County
624 So. 2d 761 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
Thornber v. City of Fort Walton Beach
622 So. 2d 570 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
EEZZZZ-ON Trailers, Inc. v. Bankers Insurance Co.
619 So. 2d 470 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
Harvard Farms, Inc. v. National Cas. Co.
617 So. 2d 400 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Palma
585 So. 2d 329 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Town of Davie v. Harrison
578 So. 2d 910 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
US SEC. Ins. Co. v. Cole
579 So. 2d 153 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
566 So. 2d 791, 1990 WL 132929, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/department-of-admin-office-of-state-employeesins-v-ganson-fla-1990.