Fee Dispute Hotline
(312) 907-7275

Assisting with High-Stakes Attorney Fee Disputes

The NALFA

News Blog

California Insurer Fights $6M Attorney Fee Award

April 14, 2020 | Posted in : Coverage of Fees, Expenses / Costs, Fee Award, Fee Dispute, Fee Entitlement / Recoverability, Hourly Rates

A recent Law 360 story by Cara Salvatore, “Calif. Insurer Fights $21M Jury Verdict, $6m Fee Award,” reports that Cypress Insurance Co. asked a Georgia federal court to hold rare oral arguments on post-trial motions regarding a $21 million award for the family of a pedestrian run over by a trucker, saying a $6 million special verdict for legal fees should be argued orally because it “equates to paying counsel at a rate of $5,500 an hour.”

The insurer wants oral argument on motions for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial after a jury awarded $21 million in February to the family of Kip Holland.  Holland died on Dec. 8, 2016, after being hit by a trailer that had detached and rolled away from a semi-tractor being driven by James Harper.

In the two-phase trial in February, the jury first awarded $15 million and found that Harper committed “bad faith in the transaction” by misrepresenting medical information for his federal trucking license.  The finding of bad faith made Holland’s family eligible to recover litigation expenses, and the trial went to a second phase, where the jury awarded $6 million for that component.

Cypress, which insured the tractor-trailer, said Wednesday that oral argument is “warranted regarding the propriety of plaintiffs’ $6,000,000 attorneys’ fees award, which equates to paying counsel at a rate of $5,500 an hour,” Cypress said.  It suggested that this may violate Georgia law concerning “reasonable” attorney fees.

The jury found that Harper had misrepresented his medical history and status during a medical examination necessary to obtain his license under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.  Cypress also said that oral argument “would aid the court with respect to its analysis of the 2015 amendments to Georgia’s Direct Action statute” — amendments Cypress claims may impact whether the insurer can even be a party to the suit.  The amendments in question preserve legal action against insurers of “intrastate” motor carriers, and Cypress asked rhetorically whether the language was intended to apply as well to insurers of interstate motor carriers.