UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
RON HESTER RESTORATIONS, INC. THROUGH ASSIGNMENT FROM WILLIAM HORSLEY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
An appellant challenging a trial court's fee award based on insufficient evidence must provide a complete transcript of all evidentiary proceedings, and absent such a complete record, the appellate court must affirm.
[1] An appellant challenging a trial court's factual findings or fee award must provide a complete transcript of all evidentiary proceedings; when an appellant provides only…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“we cannot conclude that the order 'is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory.'”
The court explained why it must affirm when an incomplete record is provided, citing Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee.
Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company appealed a final fees and costs judgment in a case involving Ron Hester Restorations, Inc. through ass…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Contingency Fee Multiplier cases and more on FLexlaw
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
Case No. 6D2023-3843 Lower Tribunal No. 2018CC-001148-0000-00 _____________________________
UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. RON HESTER RESTORATIONS, INC., through assignment from WILLIAM HORSLEY, Appellee. _____________________________
Appeal from the County Court for Polk County. Kevin M. Kohl, Judge.
August 15, 2025
BROWNLEE, J.
Appellant Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company challenges a final fees and costs judgment, arguing the use of a 1.25 contingency fee multiplier is not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Because Appellant has only furnished a transcript for the first day of a two-day evidentiary hearing, we must affirm, as “we cannot conclude that the order ‘is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory.’” See Bourbous v. Tropic Sun Props., LLC, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D1309a, D1310 (Fla. 6th DCA June 13, 2025) (quoting Applegate v. Barnett
2
Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979)); see also Loginov v. Samoilova, 345 So. 3d 372, 375 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“We further note [appellant] only provided this Court a transcript from one day of the three-day bench trial. While the transcript contains most of the expert witness’ testimony, to the extent the trial court made factual findings on the two other days of the bench trial, we are constrained to affirm absent a showing of reversible error.” (citing Applegate, 377 So. 2d at 1152)).
AFFIRMED.
STARGEL and MIZE, JJ., concur.
David A. Noel and Kara Rockenbach Link, of Link & Rockenbach, PA, West Palm Beach, for Appellant.
Nicholas A. Shannin, of Shannin Law Firm, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee.