Citizens Property Insurance Corporation appealed a fee award in Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal, and on October 28, 2026, the court ruled partly in its favor. In Citizens Property Insurance Corporation v. Rodriguez, No. 3D25-1097, the court affirmed the award of attorney’s fees to the insured, Mirna Rodriguez, including lead counsel’s fees calculated at his current market billing rate. It reversed only the prejudgment interest added on lead counsel’s fees, holding that the two remedies compensate for the same harm, a delay in payment, so awarding both is double compensation. Judge Miller wrote the opinion, with Judges Fernandez and Lobree on the panel. The opinion is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved.
The facts
The case is a first-party homeowners insurance dispute arising from a Tropical Storm Eta claim in Miami-Dade County. The parties settled on the eve of a 2022 trial and stipulated that Rodriguez was entitled to attorney’s fees under section 627.428, Florida Statutes (2021). They then spent “the better part of two years” litigating the amount.
After an evidentiary hearing, a general magistrate recommended current market rates for lead counsel, plus prejudgment interest from the date of entitlement. Citizens filed exceptions arguing the combination produced an impermissible windfall. The trial court overruled the exceptions and entered judgment, and Citizens appealed.
The holding
The court treated the question as a pure issue of law reviewed de novo: whether a prevailing insured may recover both current market billing rates and prejudgment interest when each is designed to compensate for the same harm.
The court first described the two remedies. Prejudgment interest is not a penalty, and the Florida Supreme Court has held that it accrues on attorney’s fees from the date entitlement to fees is fixed. Separately, Florida courts have approved fee awards calculated at current rather than historical rates in cases involving substantial delay. The Third District concluded that “each remedy is lawful standing alone.” The difficulty, it said, arises only when one is stacked on top of the other.
On that point the court adopted the reasoning of the First District in Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Brown, 313 So. 3d 898 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021). The Third District described Brown as holding that the current-rate approach already includes an adjustment for the time value of money, so adding prejudgment interest compounds the interest component of the award. The Third District added that because both remedies compensate for the same harm, they function as substitutes rather than supplements.
The court also pointed to federal authority. It cited a U.S. Supreme Court statement that interest and a delay factor share an identical function, and it quoted at length from a Seventh Circuit decision in which Judge Richard Posner explained why choosing between the two approaches is economically sound.
Applying those principles, the court held that by awarding lead counsel both current rates and prejudgment interest, the trial court effectively compensated him twice for the loss of use of his fee, which it called an unwarranted windfall. It found the error confined to lead counsel, because all other legal professionals were compensated at rates below their current market rates. It therefore affirmed the order in all respects except the prejudgment interest awarded on lead counsel’s fees. The disposition reads: “Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded.” Rodriguez keeps the current-rate award for lead counsel, and Citizens prevails on the prejudgment interest.
What the court did not decide
The court did not hold that current billing rates are improper, or that prejudgment interest on fees is improper. It acknowledged that neither method is perfect, but said “imperfection is a reason to carefully exercise a choice of remedies, not a license for double recovery.” It added that attorneys “are best situated to assess the market and elect the avenue that will most fully compensate them for delay in a given case.”
The opinion does not state any dollar amounts, billing rates, or interest figures, and it gives no specific instructions for the remand.
In a footnote, the court said Rodriguez’s reliance on United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Coastal Radiology, LLC, 340 So. 3d 528 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022), does not invalidate Brown. It also said the argument that current rates reflect only market appreciation while interest compensates for loss of use does not carry the day.
The trial judge was Daryl E. Trawick (Lower Tribunal No. 21-1806-CA-01).
Read the opinion (PDF): Download the opinion (PDF)