Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

859 So. 2d 541

Matalon v. Lee

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided November 19, 2003

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2003-11-19

Relies on The Florida Bar v. Mason · 809 So. 2d 6 - Allstate Ins. Co. v. Sarkis · Matalon v. Lee

Decided 2003-11-19

PER CURIAM.

¶1In 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.

¶2AFFIRMED.

GUNTHER, POLEN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

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

/859/so2d/541 · .json · Public domain