Kawaguchi v. Bentle

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kawaguchi v. Bentle

862 So. 2d 942, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 168, 2004 WL 57579

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 14, 2004

DocketNos. 2D03-1605, 2D03-1793

StatusPublished

This text of 862 So. 2d 942 (Kawaguchi v. Bentle) 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

Kawaguchi v. Bentle, 862 So. 2d 942, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 168, 2004 WL 57579 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

DANAHY, PAUL W., Senior Judge.

In these consolidated cases, Haruya Ka-waguchi appeals the final judgment entered in favor of Nancy J. Bentle in a personal injury action arising out of a motor vehicle accident and the contingency fee multiplier awarded to Ms. Bentle’s counsel pursuant to the offer of judgment statute, section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2002), and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442. We affirm the final judgment entered in favor of Ms. Bentle without discussion. We reverse, however, the trial court’s award of a contingency fee multiplier in light of the supreme court’s holding in Sarkis v. Allstate Insurance Co., 863 So.2d 210, 2003 WL 22250352 (Fla. Oct. 2, 2003) (holding that a contingency multiplier may not be applied to a fee award pursuant to section 768.79).

Affirmed as to Case No. 2D03-1605; reversed as to Case No. 2D03-1793.

FULMER and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.

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

DANAHY, PAUL W., Senior Judge.

In these consolidated cases, Haruya Ka-waguchi appeals the final judgment entered in favor of Nancy J. Bentle in a personal injury action arising out of a motor vehicle accident and the contingency fee multiplier awarded to Ms. Bentle’s counsel pursuant to the offer of judgment statute, section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2002), and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442. We affirm the final judgment entered in favor of Ms. Bentle without discussion. We reverse, however, the trial court’s award of a contingency fee multiplier in light of the supreme court’s holding in Sarkis v. Allstate Insurance Co., 863 So.2d 210, 2003 WL 22250352 (Fla. Oct. 2, 2003) (holding that a contingency multiplier may not be applied to a fee award pursuant to section 768.79).

Affirmed as to Case No. 2D03-1605; reversed as to Case No. 2D03-1793.

FULMER and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

862 So. 2d 942, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 168, 2004 WL 57579, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kawaguchi-v-bentle-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack