A Florida court has upheld a ruling granting attorney's fees to Rosanna and Randy Weber in their dispute with Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. The case, filed under docket number 3D2025-1826, revolves around the Webers' claim for attorney's fees and costs after a legal battle with their insurance provider. This decision is significant as it clarifies how attorney's fees can be calculated in insurance disputes and addresses the proper calculation of post-judgment interest.

The Third District Court of Appeal ruled on October 21, 2026, affirming the lower court's decision to award the Webers attorney's fees and costs. However, the court also noted an error in the calculation of post-judgment interest, which will require correction. This ruling affects not only the Webers but also sets a precedent for future cases involving attorney's fees in similar disputes.

The parties in this case include Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, the appellant, and Rosanna and Randy Weber, the appellees. The dispute arose after the Webers sought to recover attorney's fees and costs following a legal action against Citizens Property Insurance. The case was initially heard in the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, where the trial court ruled in favor of the Webers, leading to the appeal by Citizens Property Insurance.

The appeal was primarily focused on two issues: the award of a contingency fee multiplier to the Webers' trial co-counsel and the calculation of post-judgment interest. The Webers were represented by Alvarez Feltman Da Silva & Costa, PLLC, while Citizens Property Insurance was represented by Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP. The trial court had applied a contingency fee multiplier, which is a method used to increase attorney's fees based on the complexity and risk of the case.

The court ruled that the trial court's application of the contingency fee multiplier was justified. The opinion stated, "Because the trial court’s application of a contingency fee multiplier is supported by competent, substantial evidence, we affirm the final judgment awarding attorney’s fees and costs." This means that the court found sufficient evidence to support the trial court's decision to award increased fees to the Webers' attorneys.

However, the court also identified an error regarding the calculation of post-judgment interest. The opinion noted that the final judgment incorrectly stated that interest would be calculated at a constant rate. The court referenced Florida law, specifically section 55.03(3), which requires that the interest rate be adjusted annually. The court stated, "the Webers commendably acknowledge that the final judgment erroneously provides that post-judgment interest is to be calculated at a constant rate until the judgment is satisfied." This correction is crucial as it ensures that the Webers will receive the appropriate amount of interest on the awarded fees.

The impact of this ruling extends beyond the Webers and Citizens Property Insurance. It clarifies how attorney's fees can be calculated in insurance disputes, particularly regarding the use of contingency fee multipliers. This decision may influence future cases where similar issues arise, providing guidance on how courts should approach the calculation of fees and interest in such disputes.

Moreover, the ruling reinforces the importance of accurate calculations in legal judgments. By correcting the interest rate calculation, the court emphasizes that parties must adhere to statutory requirements when determining financial obligations following a judgment.

Looking ahead, the case may still have implications for Citizens Property Insurance and similar insurance companies. The ruling could encourage more policyholders to pursue claims for attorney's fees in disputes, knowing that courts may support such claims when backed by substantial evidence. Additionally, the decision may lead to increased scrutiny of how insurance companies handle claims and the fees associated with legal actions.

As for the possibility of appeal, the court's ruling is not final until any timely filed motion for rehearing is resolved. Citizens Property Insurance may choose to seek further review of the decision, particularly regarding the contingency fee multiplier. However, details about any potential appeal were not available in the court filing.

This case serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in legal disputes between policyholders and insurance companies. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, this ruling will likely play a role in shaping future cases in Florida and potentially beyond.