Case Law Update: Security First v. Annon — Appeals Court Strikes 2.0 Fee Multiplier in Property Insurance Case

On October 9, 2026, Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed a 2.0 contingency fee multiplier awarded against Security First Insurance Company in Security First Insurance Company v. Annon, No. 5D2025-1458, a first-party property insurance dispute from Flagler County. The insureds, Mark and Amy Annon, had been awarded $250,160 in attorney’s fees—a $125,080 lodestar doubled by the multiplier—and the appellate court ordered the trial court to enter an amended judgment for the $125,080 lodestar alone. The opinion is not final until the time for any rehearing motion has run.

What Happened

According to the opinion, the underlying property dispute was resolved without a trial, and the trial court then awarded the Annons attorney’s fees against Security First under section 627.428, Florida Statutes (2021). The court noted in a footnote that section 627.428 was repealed in 2023 but that this claim pre-dates the repeal.

Following Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985), the trial court first calculated a lodestar—reasonable hours multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate—of $125,080. Security First did not challenge that figure on appeal. Its primary argument was that the 2.0 multiplier lacked support in competent substantial evidence.

The Court’s Reasoning

The court applied the three-factor test from Standard Guaranty Insurance v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1990): whether the relevant market requires a contingency fee multiplier to obtain competent counsel; whether the attorney was able to mitigate the risk of nonpayment in any way; and whether any of the Rowe factors apply. The party seeking the multiplier carries the burden on each factor.

Factor one — the market for counsel. The court said the insureds had to show, “without inference,” that they would have faced substantial difficulties obtaining competent counsel without the possibility of a multiplier. The Annons did not testify at the fee hearing. Their fee expert, the court wrote, admitted he did not handle first-party property insurance cases, did not speak with the Annons, and made no inquiry into whether other attorneys would have taken the case without a multiplier. Relying on its earlier decision in PHH Mortgage Corp. v. Schreiber, 397 So. 3d 1159 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024), the court held the insureds did not meet their burden on this factor.

Factor two — mitigating the risk of nonpayment. Quoting earlier Florida appellate decisions, the court said the controlling consideration is generally “whether the plaintiffs can afford a retainer or hourly fees.” It found there was “no specific, non-inferential evidence” that the Annons could not have afforded a retainer or counsel’s hourly rate.

Because the record failed on both factors, the court reversed the multiplier. In a footnote addressing Security First’s second argument, it noted that section 57.104(2), Florida Statutes, as amended effective March 24, 2023, now creates “a strong presumption that a lodestar fee is sufficient and reasonable” that “may be overcome only in a rare and exceptional circumstance.” The court declined to decide whether that statute applies retroactively, though it observed that the record supported Security First’s position that this case was not rare and exceptional.

Judge Lambert wrote the opinion; Judges Edwards and Boatwright concurred.

What This Means If You Have a Florida Property Insurance Claim

• The lodestar was left undisturbed. Security First did not challenge the $125,080 lodestar on appeal, and the court directed an amended judgment awarding that amount. The reversal concerned the multiplier on top of it.
• Multipliers turn on specific evidence. In this case, the insureds did not testify, and their expert had not asked whether other attorneys would take the case without a multiplier. The court found no specific evidence that competent counsel was hard to find without one, or that the insureds could not afford a retainer or hourly fees.
• The rules depend on when your claim arose. The one-way fee statute applied here because the claim pre-dated its 2023 repeal. Florida’s attorney’s fee rules for property insurance claims have changed in recent years, so the timing of a claim can affect what remedies are available.
• Keep your claim records organized. Whatever law governs, a dated file of the policy, the claim, the insurer’s letters and payments, and repair estimates helps any evaluation of your options.

Every claim turns on its own policy language and facts, and this decision does not predict the result in any other case. If your property insurance claim has been denied, underpaid, or delayed, see our guide to denied insurance claims in Florida. Louis Law Group offers a free case evaluation.

Case details: Security First Insurance Company d/b/a Security First Florida v. Mark Annon and Amy Annon, No. 5D2025-1458 (Fla. 5th DCA Oct. 9, 2026). Opinion by Judge Lambert; Judges Edwards and Boatwright concur. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Flagler County, No. 2021-CA-000558, Judge Andrea K. Totten. Reversed and remanded with directions. Status current as of October 15, 2026.

This article is for general information and is not legal advice. It summarizes a court opinion; facts described are as stated by the court. More rulings are collected on our Case Law & Industry Insights page.