Page:Parker v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co.pdf/3

Rh  action is commenced; the subsequent occurrence of a material fact cannot aid in maintaining it.
 * 1) T –  – . – Where none of the conduct by appellee after the filing of the complaint, including legal positions asserted, could provide a basis for appellant's bad-faith claim, and it was not apparent from the abstract that the lack of notice was even raised by appellant prior to the filing of the lawsuit, the court could not say that appellee's action, albeit mistaken, in denying the claim for nonpayment of premium constituted dishonest, malicious, or oppressive conduct rising to the level of bad faith.
 * 2) A –  – . – Due to the trial court's superior acquaintance with the record and the quality of the service rendered, the supreme court will usually defer to the trial court's superior perspective in awarding attorney's fees and will reverse only when there has been an abuse of discretion.
 * 3) A –  – . – The amount of the fee should not be such that attorneys would avoid the type of litigation, or fail to sufficiently prepare, that the fee should be commensurate with the time and amount of work involved, and the ability present and necessary to meet the issues that arise in the case; the amount recovered in the action is a relevant consideration.
 * 4) A –  – . – The following factors are relevant in the determination of an award of attorney's fees: (1) the experience and ability of the attorney; (2) the time and labor required to perform the service properly; (3) the amount involved and the result obtained in the case; (4) the novelty and difficulty of the issues involved; (5) the fee customarily charged for similar services in the locality; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) the time limitations imposed upon the client in the circumstances; and (8) the likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer.
 * 5) A –  – . – Where appellant submitted a detailed bill for 117.60 total hours, it was virtually impossible to separate those services related to the coverage claim and those related to the bad-faith claim, the fee was very large in relation to appellant's recovery, and the trial court, in its order, considered these and all of the relevant factors presented in the case, the supreme court could not say that there was an abuse of discretion in the award of the fee.