A Florida insurer kept its coverage win but lost part of its fee award after the court found the billing evidence too thin.
People's Trust Insurance Company insured a home that took on water damage. The owner hired RM & Associates Consulting for the repairs and signed over the policy's post-loss benefits - an assignment of benefits, where the homeowner hands the right to collect insurance money to the contractor. RM later sued, claiming People's Trust had underpaid for the work.
The insurer's defense came down to one policy term. The homeowner was supposed to notify People's Trust before authorizing repairs, giving the company the chance to bring in its own preferred contractor. That didn't happen. So People's Trust argued it owed only what its preferred contractor would have charged - $2,000 - which it had already paid before RM filed suit.
The county court sided with the insurer, and the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed in 2022. The court also conditionally granted People's Trust appellate attorney's fees under section 768.79, Florida Statutes, leaving the trial court to determine entitlement and the amount.
That amount is what came back on appeal. People's Trust sought $24,866.17, most of it for a single answer brief. Its fees expert testified the hours were reasonable, and a supervising partner described overseeing the appeal.
In its June 17, 2026 decision, the Fourth District disagreed on the number. The expert pointed to the quality of the brief, the importance of the issue and later discussions with counsel - but, the court said, none of that showed the specific hours were necessary. Several billing entries simply read work on the "answer brief," with little detail about the tasks performed.
One point stood out. The firm had another pending appeal raising a "very similar" issue and had already researched and briefed related arguments. The partner maintained this brief was written "from scratch," yet, the court said, no one accounted for how much the parallel work overlapped - and a fee award can't include duplicated or unnecessary hours.
So the court reversed only the appellate-fee portion and sent it back for redetermination with better evidence. The coverage win and the rest of the judgment stand.
The court kept its point narrow. It did not say the appellate work lacked value, and it did not bar flat-fee or hybrid billing arrangements. The lesson for carriers and defense counsel is simpler: winning the right to fees isn't the same as proving the amount. To collect, the billing records and expert testimony have to show, in detail, that the hours were reasonable and necessary - especially when the same firm is briefing similar issues across more than one case.
The decision is not final until any timely motion for rehearing is resolved.
