Florida District Courts of Appeal, 2003

Matalon v. Lee

Matalon v. Lee
Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided November 19, 2003 · Gunther, Polen, Shahood
859 So. 2d 541; 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 17637; 2003 WL 22715792 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Matalon v. Lee

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

In our slip opinion1 filed June 11, 2003, we reserved jurisdiction on Lee’s cross-appeal of the order that granted him his attorney’s fees pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2001), but refused to apply a multiplier to said award, pending the Florida Supreme Court’s resolution in Allstate Insurance Co. v. Sarkis, 809 So.2d 6 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), rev. granted, 826 So.2d 992 (Table) (Fla. 2002). The Florida Supreme Court has now issued its opinion, holding that a contingency multiplier may not be applied to a fee award pursuant to section 768.79. Sarkis v. Allstate Ins. Co., 28 Fla. L. Weekly S740, — So.2d —, 2003 WL 22250352 (Fla. Oct. 2, 2003). *542Consequently, we hereby affirm Lee’s cross-appeal.

AFFIRMED.

GUNTHER, POLEN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

. Matalon v. Lee, 847 So.2d 1077 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.