Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Ron Hester Restorations, Inc. Through Assignment From William Horsley

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedAugust 15, 2025
Docket6D2023-3843
StatusPublished

This text of Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Ron Hester Restorations, Inc. Through Assignment From William Horsley (Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Ron Hester Restorations, Inc. Through Assignment From William Horsley) 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
Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Ron Hester Restorations, Inc. Through Assignment From William Horsley, (Fla. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

Case No. 6D2023-3843 Lower Tribunal No. 2018CC-001148-0000-00 _____________________________

UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,

Appellant,

v.

RON HESTER RESTORATIONS, INC., through assignment from WILLIAM HORSLEY,

Appellee. _____________________________

Appeal from the County Court for Polk County. Kevin M. Kohl, Judge.

August 15, 2025

BROWNLEE, J.

Appellant Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company challenges a

final fees and costs judgment, arguing the use of a 1.25 contingency fee multiplier

is not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Because Appellant has only

furnished a transcript for the first day of a two-day evidentiary hearing, we must

affirm, as “we cannot conclude that the order ‘is not supported by the evidence or

by an alternative theory.’” See Bourbous v. Tropic Sun Props., LLC, 50 Fla. L.

Weekly D1309a, D1310 (Fla. 6th DCA June 13, 2025) (quoting Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979)); see also Loginov v.

Samoilova, 345 So. 3d 372, 375 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“We further note [appellant]

only provided this Court a transcript from one day of the three-day bench trial. While

the transcript contains most of the expert witness’ testimony, to the extent the trial

court made factual findings on the two other days of the bench trial, we are

constrained to affirm absent a showing of reversible error.” (citing Applegate, 377

So. 2d at 1152)).

AFFIRMED.

STARGEL and MIZE, JJ., concur.

David A. Noel and Kara Rockenbach Link, of Link & Rockenbach, PA, West Palm Beach, for Appellant.

Nicholas A. Shannin, of Shannin Law Firm, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED

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

Related

Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee
377 So. 2d 1150 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Ron Hester Restorations, Inc. Through Assignment From William Horsley, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/universal-property-casualty-insurance-company-v-ron-hester-restorations-fladistctapp-2025.