Limit on Attorney Fees, Unintentional Waiver, Question of Prejudice
In this edition of their No-Fault Insurance Law Wrap-Up, David M. Barshay and Steven J. Neuwirth discuss some recent notable opinions, including a case in which a Florida court denied a request for additional attorney fees; another where plaintiff's acceptance of a check resulted in unintentional waiver of claims; and another where an appellate court agreed that plaintiff's case should be dismissed, but left open the issue of whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
June 09, 2021 at 12:00 PM
10 minute read
Florida Court Denies Request for Additional Attorney Fees. A successful no-fault insurance claimant in an arbitration or court proceeding is entitled to attorney fees, which are generally 20% of the principal benefit amount, plus interest, limited to a maximum of $1,360. 11 NYCRR 65-4.6(d). Additional fees are available to a successful applicant in a master arbitration appeal (11 NYCRR 65-4.10(j)(2)), a de novo action, an Article 75 Petition to vacate or confirm an arbitration award or any other court appeal (11 NYCRR 65-4.10(j)(4)).
An alternative calculation of fees is available "where one of the issues involves a policy issue as enumerated on the prescribed denial of claim form." In those instances, "the attorney's fee for the arbitration or litigation of all issues shall be limited to a fee of up to $70 per hour, subject to a maximum fee of $1,400. In addition, an attorney shall be entitled to receive a fee of up to $80 per hour for each personal appearance before the arbitration forum or court." 11 NYCRR 65-4.6(C). Of course, depending on the amount of provable time spent by counsel, this alternative calculation may not necessarily lead to a significant fee for the applicant's attorney. See, e.g., AEE Med. Diagnostic, P.C. v. Hereford Ins. Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 29102 (NY City Civ. Ct., NY Cty. 2019) (The successful plaintiff's counsel argued that an IME "no-show" defense was one such "policy issue" warranting the alternative calculation of fees. The court agreed, but granted a total of only $695 in attorney fees.).
Another alternative attorney fee is available "if the arbitrator or a court determines that the issues in dispute were of such a novel or unique nature as to require extraordinary skills or services." 11 NYCRR 65-4.6(e). In those instances, "the arbitrator or court may award an attorney's fee in excess of the limitations set forth in this section." However, "[a]n excess fee award shall detail the specific novel or unique nature of the dispute that justifies the award." Id.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPost-Pandemic Increase in Live Events Prompts Need for Premise Liability Action
7 minute readAre Federal and State Superfund Laws the Best Way to Address Microplastics?
10 minute readGet Your Popcorn Ready: Sanctions Regulations Involving Artwork and Media Content in a Post-'Chevron' World
11 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1US Magistrate Judge Embry Kidd Confirmed to 11th Circuit
- 2Shaq Signs $11 Million Settlement to Resolve Astrals Investor Claims
- 3McCormick Consolidates Two Tesla Chancery Cases
- 4Amazon, SpaceX Press Constitutional Challenges to NLRB at 5th Circuit
- 5Schools Win Again: Social Media Fails to Strike Public Nuisance Claims
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250