Florida court wipes out 2.5 fee multiplier against Universal Property

Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal has overturned a nearly $1 million legal fee award against Universal Property & Casualty, specifically striking down a 2.5 contingency risk multiplier. The court ruled that the trial court lacked sufficient evidence to prove that a multiplier was necessary to attract competent counsel for the insured's claim. This decision is significant for the property insurance sector as it reinforces strict evidentiary standards for fee enhancements and limits the recovery of costs for non-testifying experts.

On June 24, 2026, the Third District Court of Appeal issued a ruling that significantly reduced the financial burden on Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company following a settlement with its insured, Orlando Cisneros Dameras. The trial court had originally calculated a base "lodestar" fee of $389,362.50 but applied a 2.5 contingency risk multiplier, which inflated the total award to $973,406.25. Universal challenged the multiplier, arguing that the trial court lacked evidence to support the enhanced rate, as well as specific hours and expert costs included in the final judgment.

The appeals court based its decision on the legal standards established in the Florida Supreme Court cases of Rowe and Quanstrom, which dictate that a multiplier is only justified if the market requires it to attract competent counsel. While the trial court praised the insured’s legal team for their skill and "temerity" in handling a risky case involving late notice of a claim, the appellate court found this insufficient. The court noted that the insured’s fee expert failed to demonstrate that other competent firms in the South Florida property insurance market would have refused the case without the promise of a multiplier, especially since many firms in the region handle such litigation.

In addition to removing the multiplier, the court reversed $42,658.25 in costs associated with two experts who were hired for trial preparation but never actually testified. Citing Florida Statutes section 92.231(2), the court clarified that taxable costs are generally only authorized for experts who provide testimony. However, a separate $96,000 award for a testifying fee expert was allowed to stand because Universal failed to preserve its challenge to that specific cost during the initial trial or rehearing motion.

This ruling serves as a critical precedent for property insurers in Florida, as it underscores the necessity for plaintiffs to provide concrete market evidence before receiving fee enhancements. By strictly applying the Quanstrom test and statutory limits on expert fees, the court has provided carriers with a clearer path to challenge excessive legal fee awards. The case has been remanded to the trial court to recalculate the final fee without the multiplier and to re-evaluate expert costs based on the appellate court's guidance regarding necessity for trial.