 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Williams v. Manus3/6/2001
nt offers made prior to the institution of the action . . . ; (2) offers of judgment pursuant to Rule 68, and whether the "judgment finally obtained" was more favorable than such offers; (3) whether defendant unjustly exercised "superior bargaining power"; (4) in the case of an unwarranted refusal by an insurance company, the "context in which the dispute arose."; (5) the timing of settlement offers; (6) the amounts of the settlement offers as compared to the jury verdict; and the whole record. Horton, 132 N.C. App. at 351, 513 S.E.2d at 334-35 (citations omitted).
Here, however, the trial court made absolutely no findings in support of its award of attorney's fees.
We also note that the attorney's fees award might be considered unreasonable in light of the jury verdict, the amount plaintiff sought to recover from defendants, and plaintiff's contract for legal services with counsel. If one considers the hourly rate counsel received, however, the award might be unreasonably low.
This Court has stated:
"While the statute is aimed at encouraging injured parties to press their meritorious but pecuniarily small claims, we do not believe that it was intended to encourage parties to refuse reasonable settlement offers and give rise to needless litigation by guaranteeing that counsel will, in all cases, be compensated." Id. at 352, 513 S.E.2d at 335 (quoting Harrison v. Herbin, 35 N.C. App. 259, 261, 241 S.E.2d 108, 109, cert. denied, 295 N.C. 90, 244 S.E.2d 258 (1978)). In light of the foregoing, and the trial court's failure to make any findings of fact to support its award of attorney's fees, the award appears to be unsupported by reason.
Accordingly, we hold the trial court erred in awarding attorney's fees to counsel for plaintiff without considering the guidelines established by Horton. Thus, the award of attorney's fees in the present case is reversed, and the case remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Reversed and remanded.
Chief Judge EAGLES and Judge HUDSON concur.
|