Fee Dispute Hotline
(312) 907-7275

Assisting with High-Stakes Attorney Fee Disputes

The NALFA

News Blog

Category: Practice Area: Insurance Coverage Litigation

Eleventh Circuit Tosses Insurer’s Request for Attorney Fees

June 2, 2022

A recent Law 360 story by Josh Liberatore, “11th Circ. Tosses Insurer’s Bid For Atty Fees After Reversal” reports that an insurer can't seek attorney fees on a $1.6 million judgment it previously won against a Liberty Mutual unit, the Eleventh Circuit confirmed, which comes after the court recently vacated the insurer's win on claims that the Liberty unit breached its contract while defending a fatal accident suit.  In an unpublished opinion, the appellate panel denied Endurance American Specialty Insurance Co.'s bid for attorney fees as moot. 

In May, the Eleventh Circuit reversed Endurance's $1.6 million win, finding that it couldn't show how Safeco Insurance Co. breached an indemnity agreement it had with Comegys Insurance Agency Inc., which was insured by Endurance.  "Safeco did win its appeal," the panel noted, "so, Endurance may not seek attorneys' fees."  Endurance had asked the Eleventh Circuit to overturn a lower court judge's ruling that its claims for attorney fees stemming from the judgment against Safeco were time-barred because Endurance failed to seek the fees within 14 days of the judgment.

The coverage dispute stems from an accident between driver Robert Smith and a motorcyclist, who died.  Safeco insured Smith, who bought his policies through Comegys.  Smith faced a wrongful death suit for which Safeco assigned an attorney who defended the case, and eventually a $7.3 million consent judgment was entered against Smith, according to court documents.  The consent judgment included Safeco paying the motorcyclist's estate the limits of Smith's auto policy, $1.25 million, and assigning the estate Safeco's claim against Comegys for negligent procurement, based on the theory that Comegys failed to find Smith a more robust policy after he had inquired about raising his policy limits.

Endurance insures Comegys under an errors and omissions policy, according to its suit.  The motorcyclist's estate pursued Endurance and Comegys "for the limit of Comegys's policy with Endurance," according to court documents.  The companies eventually paid just over $1.5 million to end the claims, court records show.

Endurance then sought to recoup the money from Safeco, arguing Safeco had breached its contract with Comegys by refusing to indemnify it for the alleged negligence.  Endurance's argument hinged on Safeco assigning an attorney to defend Smith, who allegedly mentioned to the motorcyclist's estate the possibility of a negligent procurement claim against Comegys and recommended an insurance lawyer to the estate.  In July 2019, a jury found in Endurance's favor, and the lower court entered a $1.6 million judgment against Safeco.

While Safeco appealed that decision to the Eleventh Circuit, Endurance launched an appeal of its own, arguing it should be awarded attorney fees for the judgment.  However, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the judgment last month, finding that Endurance couldn't show how Safeco had breached its contract with Comegys.  Safeco had acted entirely within the terms of that agreement by providing an insurance policy to Comegys's customers, tendering the policy on time after the accident and providing an attorney to Smith to defend the suit, the Eleventh Circuit panel presiding over that case found.  Safeco can't be held liable for what Smith's attorney decided to do after that, the panel said.

Florida Panel Finds Attorney Fee Error in Irma Coverage Suit

May 19, 2022

A recent Law 360 story by Ben Zigterman, “Fla. Panel Finds Atty Fees Error in Irma Coverage Suit” reports that a Florida state appellate panel reversed a lower court's award of attorney fees to counsel for homeowners suing underwriters at Lloyd's of London for coverage of damage from Hurricane Irma in 2017.  Instead of being paid for more than 550 hours of work to get a $52,000 jury verdict for Roniel Candelaria and Amelia Padura, the three-judge panel agreed with the underwriters that the homeowners' attorney fees should be recalculated based on 480.5 billed hours.

The panel said Judge Martin Zilber should have gone through the time records of the homeowners' counsel line by line, but instead applied an arbitrary 15% cut.  The judge awarded the homeowners' counsel a lodestar amount of $312,000, applying a 1.8 multiplier to that amount and adding other legal costs, for a total award of more than $600,000.

"The lodestar amount is not supported by competent substantial evidence because the trial court did not make 'specific findings' as to its determination," Judge Kevin Emas wrote for the panel.  While the homeowners' expert suggested a 7.5% billing hours cut, the judge instead applied a 15% cut, according to the opinion.

"The insureds' expert did not conduct a line-by-line analysis of the billing," Judge Emas wrote.  "The trial court adopted plaintiff's expert's arbitrary methodology.  Indeed, in the instant case the trial court did not merely adopt the expert's methodology but added its own across-the-board reduction of 15%."  The panel said its previous decisions require "specific findings as to disputed time entries" and "particularized reductions."

"The trial court's comments at the conclusion of the hearing reveal that it had only examined 'several' of the timesheets," instead of making a line-item review, Judge Emas wrote.  The panel also said the trial judge improperly applied the 1.8-contingency multiplier.  The trial judge lacked "competent substantial evidence to address whether the attorney was able to mitigate the risk of nonpayment in any way — specifically, whether the client could afford to pay a retainer or hourly fees," Judge Emas wrote.

Insurer Asks Judge to Reduce Attorney Fees in Coverage Win

May 17, 2022

A recent Law 360 story by Ben Zigterman, “Insurer Asks Judge To Nix Cleveland Bar’s Atty Fee Request” reports that Auto-Owners Insurance Co. told an Ohio federal judge that the attorney for a Cleveland bar should not be awarded $293,000 in fees and expenses it requested after winning a $1.2 million jury verdict over coverage for fire damage.  At most, the insurer argued in the filing, Daniel Shimko should get $91,000 for representing Blues to You Inc., which does business as Wilbert's Food & Music.

In April, a jury ruled in favor of Blues to You on its claims that Auto-Owners breached its contract and acted in bad faith, awarding the bar $1.2 million, including $375,000 in punitive damages.  The bar had accused Auto-Owners of failing to properly investigate and not fully covering its claims for fire, smoke and water damage from a 2019 fire, as well as water damage from a 2020 fire in a unit above the bar.

While the bar said the insurer made a "pitifully low offer" and "dragged its feet," the insurer argued that Blues to You misrepresented the value of its claims by duplicating losses from the first fire in its losses from the second.  After the jury ruled in its favor, the bar asked for more than $271,000 in attorney fees based on 706.2 hours of work at $385 an hour, plus about $21,000 in legal expenses.

"More than a little skill and experience in this field is paramount to successfully represent an insured in such a legal proceeding," the bar wrote earlier this month. "Plaintiff's counsel went beyond proving bad faith.  Plaintiff successfully proved that Auto-Owners acted with ill will in the manner in which it adjusted plaintiff's two claims."  In response, Auto-Owners questioned whether Shimko really spent 700 hours on the suit, noting that its attorneys only spent about 504 hours on it.  "For plaintiff's counsel to allege that he spent 200 more hours is inconceivable and suggests that plaintiff's counsel's stated time is overstated," the insurer wrote.

It also argued that Shimko's proposed hourly rate is excessive for solo practitioners in Ohio and that the jury didn't provide for litigation expenses to be recovered.  The insurer also disputed that any attorney fees should be granted, arguing that the evidence did not back up an award for punitive damages.  "There is absolutely no evidence in the record of conduct on behalf of defendant that can be remotely categorized as being malicious," Auto-Owners wrote.  It also has filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that the jury's verdict "should have shocked the conscience of the court."

Mass. Justices Told Attorney Fee Award Must Be Covered

April 4, 2022

A recent Law 360 story by Ganesh Setty, “Mass. Justices Told Atty Fee Award Must Be Covered” reports that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court heard oral arguments on whether an attorney fee award constitutes damages "because of" bodily injury, with the dispute appearing to hinge on whether a reasonable policyholder would interpret their policy that way in light of a narrow, inapplicable exclusion exception for such payments.

Vermont Mutual Insurance Co. argued the attorney fee award against its insureds falls outside its "because of" causation standard with respect to bodily injury claims.  The recipient of the yet-to-be-paid award, Phyllis Maston, meanwhile highlighted how the policy did not specifically define the term "damages."  The Massachusetts high court appeared hesitant to side with Maston, given the award originated from a state consumer protection statute, and Vermont Mutual's policy is a standard form insurance contract used nationwide.

According to court documents, Vermont Mutual insured Paul and Jane Poirier, franchisees of damage restoration chain Servpro, under a business owners policy between December 1998 and December 2001.  Phyllis Maston and her late husband, Douglas, hired Servpro to clean out their basement, and Phyllis Maston later suffered a nasal infection she attributed to the cleaning solution Servpro used.  The Mastons sued Servpro, and a trial court ultimately found in 2009 that Servpro violated Massachusetts' consumer protection law, Chapter 93A, through its breach of warranty.

As part of Chapter 93A, which empowers consumers to sue businesses for unfair or deceptive practices, a successful petitioner can recover their own attorney fees.  The law treats attorney fee awards as separate from awards for damages.  Vermont Mutual paid nearly $700,000 to Maston, but refused to cover her award of more than $215,000 in attorney fees, along with another $21,600 in attorney fees following Servpro's unsuccessful appeal of the original judgment, according to court documents.

The insurer subsequently filed a lawsuit against the Poiriers and Maston seeking a court declaration that the total attorney fee award is not covered since it does not constitute insured damages "because of" bodily injury as required by its policy.  A lower court sided with Maston in July 2016, noting there are no other cases in Massachusetts directly addressing a coverage dispute like Vermont Mutual's.  The court instead pointed to the 2010 Ohio Supreme Court decision in Neal-Pettit v. Lahman, which involved language similar to Vermont Mutual's policy, and found that attorney fees do qualify as damages because of bodily injury.

Vermont Mutual maintained in its high court briefs that since the policy used "because of," rather than a broader term like "arising out of," the attorney fee award is not covered, especially since Chapter 93A treats damages and attorney fee awards as separate remedies.  The insurer further argued that an exception to a contractual liability exclusion in the policy explicitly treats an attorney fee award as damages because of bodily injury only when there's an insurance contract between its insured and another party, and the parties can be jointly represented in a civil dispute.

While a policyholder reading the policy may initially think an attorney fee award constitutes covered damages, "you can't find ambiguity just because you stopped reading," Peter E. Heppner, counsel for the insurer, told the high court's seven justices.  Although inapplicable, the exclusion exception illustrates that the policy did not intend to broadly treat attorney fees as damages because of bodily injury, he said.  Justice Scott L. Kafker asked Heppner, with respect to Maston's attorney fee award: "I understand that it's two or three steps removed, but it all arises out of the fact that there's an injury, doesn't it?"

"'Arises out of' is an interesting choice of words," Heppner responded. "When the policy has 'arising out of' in several exclusions, and then 'because of' here — and we know that the Supreme Court has said 'because of' is 'but for' — there has to be a distinction between those words."

When asked by Justice Dalila Argaez Wendlandt why the exclusion exception didn't put a reasonable insured on notice that the attorney fees may not otherwise be covered, Timothy P. Wickstrom, an attorney representing Maston, said the exclusion exception was inapplicable to the case to begin with.  It only concerns defense costs for the insured and the other party it contracts with, not attorney fee awards adverse to an insured, he argued.  If Vermont Mutual wanted to broadly bar coverage for attorney fees, one sentence stating so would have sufficed, he added.  The insurance policy at issue is a standard form insurance policy, Justice Kafker further noted. "That's where it gets me nervous."

"Here [in] Massachusetts, we've got this particular 93A attorney fee provision that's idiosyncratic, and we're applying it to these nationwide forms, right?" he asked.  The coverage dispute is not about Chapter 93A's separate treatment of damages and attorney fees, but whether attorney fees are covered under the policy, Wickstrom responded. Wickstrom further highlighted that part of the total attorney fee award under Chapter 93A includes Servpro's unsuccessful appeal of the judgment in the underlying case.

"In a situation where Vermont Mutual had a duty to defend, had a duty to indemnify — the defendants, their insureds, were on the hook for the appeals court fees," he said.  "How unfair is that?"  "Just create all the complexities of 93A attorneys fees, which probably no one ever thought about when they created this sort of extra remedy for everybody," Justice Kafker quipped.

ISBA Mutual Can’t Drop Defense of Law Firm in Fee Dispute

December 14, 2021

A recent Law360 story by Emily Lever, “Ill. Bar Insurer Can’t Ditch Law Firm Defense in Fees Fight,” reports that the Illinois State Bar Association Mutual Insurance Company can't avoid defending a law firm accused of wrongfully pocketing attorney fees for its handling of an estate case, an Illinois appellate court ruled, saying the suit is covered by the firm's malpractice insurance.  The insurer has a duty to cover lawyer Alan E. Sohn and his firm in a dispute with Randy Sly, the executor of an estate Sohn represented in probate court, over $280,000 in legal fees, according to a three-judge panel of the First Judicial District of the Appellate Court of Illinois.  The court held that the money at issue is not just for fees — it's also a loss incurred by Sohn's alleged malpractice, meaning it can be understood as damages.

"Sly's injury is not a consequence of the fees charged, but a consequence of Sohn's allegedly negligent advice," Justice Mary Ellen Coghlan wrote on behalf of the panel.  Justices Aurelia Pucinski and Carl A. Walker concurred.  The court rejected ISBA Mutual's 2019 appeal, which argued that the suit against Sohn seeks repayment of attorney fees rather than damages, and therefore the issue is a billing dispute and not about the practice of law, so Sohn's insurance shouldn't have to foot the bill.

Sly is suing Sohn, claiming his former attorney gave him faulty legal advice on executing the estate of Linda Loessy, who died in 2012.  The Circuit Court of Cook County ruled that Sohn's work "resulted in little benefit" to Loessy's estate, which was "not a complicated estate to administer."  The court ruled that he should have been paid no more than $135,000 for his services and should return the excess, which amounted to $185,000, plus more than $95,000 in court fees incurred by a court-appointed guardian for Loessy's children in his action against Sohn.

Sohn's insurance, which was active throughout the course of case, covers "wrongful acts" related to the "rendering of or failure to render professional services," but excludes attorney fees, which ISBA Mutual argued let it off the hook for the $280,000.  A straightforward billing dispute would be "purely ministerial" and not sufficiently related to the practice of law to qualify for coverage, according to the panel, but this dispute is both about the fees billing and about the alleged misbehavior by which Sohn obtained the fees, the panel held, noting that the court-appointed guardian's filings say the payouts to Sohn "substantially reduced" the estate.