Highlands Insurance Co. v. Kravecas

751 So. 2d 763, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2019, 2000 WL 227948
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 1, 2000·No. No. 3D99-1656·Published

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Although we find no abuse of discretion in the determinations of the time appropriately expended by the plaintiffs attorney and his hourly rate, we conclude that there is no basis for the 2.0 multiplier applied by the trial court. See Standard Guar. Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So.2d 828 (Fla.1990); Gonzalez v. Veloso, 731 So.2d 63 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Simmons v. Royal Floral Distributors, Inc., 724 So.2d 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Askowitz v. Susan Feuer Interior Design, Inc., 563 So.2d 752 [764] (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), review denied, 576 So.2d 292 (Fla.1991).

Accordingly, the cause is remanded with directions to make an award of one-half of the present judgment for attorney’s fees.

GODERICH and RAMIREZ, JJ., concur.

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

Highlands Insurance Co. v. Kravecas, 751 So. 2d 763, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2019, 2000 WL 227948 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

751 So. 2d 763 (Highlands Insurance Co. v. Kravecas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Miller v. First American Bank and Trust
607 So. 2d 483 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Askowitz v. Susan Feuer Interior Design, Inc.
563 So. 2d 752 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Standard Guar. Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom
555 So. 2d 828 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1990)
Gonzalez v. Veloso
731 So. 2d 63 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
Simmons v. ROYAL FLORAL DISTRIBUTORS
724 So. 2d 99 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)