A Florida appeals court has reversed a trial court's ruling that awarded attorney's fees with a multiplier to homeowners Mark and Amy Annon in their dispute with Security First Insurance Company. The court's decision, issued on October 9, 2026, affects how attorney's fees are calculated in similar insurance claims.
The Annon family had sought legal fees after their property insurance claim was resolved without going to trial. The trial court initially awarded them $125,080 for attorney's fees, which was then doubled to $250,160 using a contingency fee multiplier. Security First Insurance contested the multiplier, leading to the appeal.
Background
Mark and Amy Annon filed a claim against Security First Insurance Company, which operates under the name Security First Florida. The dispute arose after the couple sought compensation for damages covered under their property insurance policy. After the claim was resolved without a trial, the Annons sought attorney's fees under Florida law, specifically section 627.428, which allows for such awards in insurance disputes.
The case reached the District Court of Appeal of Florida after the trial court ruled in favor of the Annons, awarding them a substantial amount in attorney's fees. Security First Insurance, represented by attorneys Michael Fox Orr and Loreyn P. Raab, appealed the decision, particularly the application of the contingency fee multiplier.
The Ruling
The appeals court, led by Judge Lambert, ruled in favor of Security First Insurance, stating that the trial court's application of the 2.0 contingency fee multiplier was not supported by competent substantial evidence. The court noted, “Appellees failed to meet their evidentiary burden under the first Quanstrom factor to support the imposition of the contingency risk multiplier.”
The court emphasized that the Annons did not provide sufficient evidence to show that they would have faced significant difficulties in obtaining competent legal counsel without the multiplier. The ruling highlighted that the burden of proof lies with the party seeking the multiplier, which in this case was the Annons. The court also found that there was a lack of evidence showing that the Annons could not afford to pay a retainer or hourly fees for their attorney.
Impact
This ruling is significant for future cases involving attorney's fees in Florida, particularly in insurance disputes. By reversing the multiplier, the court has set a precedent that emphasizes the need for clear evidence when seeking enhanced fees. This decision may impact how attorneys approach fee arrangements in similar cases, as they must now be more diligent in demonstrating the necessity of a multiplier.
The ruling also reflects changes in Florida law regarding attorney's fees. Since the repeal of section 627.428 in 2023, the legal landscape for awarding fees has shifted. The court noted that the Florida Legislature amended section 57.104 to establish a strong presumption that a lodestar fee is sufficient and reasonable, which could further limit the circumstances under which multipliers are awarded.
What's Next
The Annons may consider their options following this ruling, including the possibility of appealing to the Florida Supreme Court. However, details on any potential appeal or related cases were not available in the court filing.