From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Department of Admin. v. Ganson

Supreme Court of Florida
Sep 13, 1990
566 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 1990)

Opinion

No. 75396.

September 13, 1990.

Appeal from the Department of Administration.

Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Gen. Counsel, Dept. of Admin., Tallahassee, for petitioner.

Kenneth D. Kranz of Eric B. Tilton, P.A., Tallahassee, for respondent.


Pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution, we accepted jurisdiction in Ganson v. Department of Administration, 554 So.2d 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), to resolve conflict with Standard Guaranty Insurance Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So.2d 828 (Fla. 1990).

Ganson successfully litigated a claim for state health insurance benefits in which the district court of appeal ordered a hearing to determine an appropriate attorney's fee. Ganson v. Department of Admin., 554 So.2d 516 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). The hearing officer submitted a report, which the district court adopted in toto. In that report, the hearing officer recognized that there was a split of authority on the issue but concluded that a contingency-risk multiplier was required because there was a contingent-fee agreement between the client and her attorney.

That decision is not under review here.

A few weeks after the district court of appeal affirmed the fee award, we issued Quanstrom, which held that the multiplier is not automatically required in contingent-fee cases. Quanstrom, 555 So.2d at 831. Therefore, the opinion below is incorrect and must be quashed. We remand for reconsideration in light of Quanstrom.

It is so ordered.

SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, EHRLICH, BARKETT and KOGAN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Department of Admin. v. Ganson

Supreme Court of Florida
Sep 13, 1990
566 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 1990)
Case details for

Department of Admin. v. Ganson

Case Details

Full title:DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE OF STATE EMPLOYEES' INSURANCE…

Court:Supreme Court of Florida

Date published: Sep 13, 1990

Citations

566 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 1990)

Citing Cases

Weaver v. School Bd. of Leon County

We disagree also with the Board's contentions on cross-appeal. Addressing first the issues on cross-appeal,…

U.S. Sec. Ins. Co. v. Cole

We affirm in part and reverse in part. The only error that we have discerned in the attorney's fee order is…