Security First Insurance Co. v. Annon · No. 5D2025-1458 (Fla. 5th DCA) · Decided October 9, 2026
More analysis may follow as additional information is received and reviewed. Sign up for alerts.
Insureds who won an attorney’s fee award against their property insurer under the now-repealed section 627.428, Florida Statutes, did not present competent substantial evidence to support a 2.0 contingency fee multiplier, the Fifth District Court of Appeal has held. The court reversed the multiplier and remanded for entry of an amended final judgment awarding the $125,080.00 lodestar amount instead of the $250,160.00 total the trial court awarded.
What Happened
Mark and Amy Annon had a first-party property dispute with Security First Insurance Company that was resolved without a trial. The Flagler County circuit court then awarded the Annons attorney’s fees under section 627.428 (2021). Section 627.428 was repealed in 2023; the opinion notes that the claim in this case pre-dates the repeal.
Following Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985), the trial court computed a lodestar fee of $125,080.00, which Security First did not challenge on appeal. The court then applied a 2.0 contingency fee multiplier, bringing the award to $250,160.00. Security First appealed the multiplier.
At the fee hearing, the Annons did not testify. Their expert witness admitted under oath that he did not handle first-party property insurance cases and did not speak with the Annons, and he testified that he made no inquiry into whether other attorneys would have taken this type of case without the possibility of a multiplier.
What the Court Held
Under Standard Guaranty Insurance v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1990), a court deciding whether a multiplier is necessary considers whether the relevant market requires a contingency fee multiplier to obtain competent counsel, whether the attorney was able to mitigate the risk of nonpayment in any way, and whether any of the Rowe factors apply. The Annons, as the parties seeking fees, had the burden to establish each factor. The decision to apply a multiplier is reviewed for abuse of discretion, but the findings supporting it must rest on competent, substantial evidence.
First factor. The court compared the case to its decision in PHH Mortgage Corp. v. Schreiber, 397 So. 3d 1159 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024), where it reversed a multiplier because the expert’s testimony said nothing about whether a foreclosure client could have obtained competent counsel without one. The Annons’ expert’s testimony, the court said, “was similarly lacking as to whether Appellees could have obtained competent counsel in the relevant market absent the possibility of a multiplier.” It held, “without further elaboration,” that the Annons “failed to meet their evidentiary burden under the first Quanstrom factor.”
Second factor. The court also found no competent substantial evidence that counsel was unable to mitigate the risk of nonpayment. Quoting Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v. Candelaria, 339 So. 3d 463 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022), which in turn quoted Wesson v. Florida Peninsula Insurance Co., it noted that the controlling consideration is generally “whether the plaintiffs can afford a retainer or hourly fees.” Here, the court said, “there was no specific, non-inferential evidence before the trial court that Appellees could not have afforded or lacked the financial means to either pay a retainer fee or counsel’s hourly rate.”
Section 57.104. In a footnote, the court noted that Security First also argued that the 2023 amendment to section 57.104, Florida Statutes—which creates a strong presumption that a lodestar fee is sufficient and reasonable—should apply retroactively. The court found it unnecessary to decide that question, though it observed that “the record in this appeal supports Security First’s argument that this case was not rare and exceptional.”
Why It Matters
For fee claims still governed by the repealed section 627.428, the decision shows that a multiplier requires record evidence directed at the specific Quanstrom factors, including whether the insureds could have obtained competent counsel without a multiplier and, generally, whether they could afford a retainer or hourly fees. The court did not decide whether the 2023 version of section 57.104 applies retroactively.
The Opinion
Download the full opinion (PDF)
| Court | Fifth District Court of Appeal |
| Case No. | 5D2025-1458 |
| Lower Court | Circuit Court, Flagler County (Judge Andrea K. Totten) |
| Opinion by | Judge Lambert (Judges Edwards and Boatwright concurring) |
| Decided | October 9, 2026 |
| Result | Reversed and remanded with directions to enter an amended final judgment awarding the $125,080.00 lodestar fee with no multiplier |