UNIVERSAL PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. RON HESTER RESTORATIONS INC (2025)

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, ––– So.3d ––––, ––––, 2025 WL 1668665 (Fla. 6th DCA June 13, 2025) (quoting Applegate v. Barnett 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.

BROWNLEE, J.

STARGEL and MIZE, JJ., concur.