{
  "id": 1257800,
  "name": "NEWCOURT FINANCIAL, INC. v. CANAL INSURANCE COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Newcourt Financial, Inc. v. Canal Insurance",
  "decision_date": "2000-05-25",
  "docket_number": "99-1249",
  "first_page": "452",
  "last_page": "455",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "341 Ark. 452"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "17 S.W.3d 83"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "245 Ark. 1029",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1606957
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/245/1029-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "25 Ark. App. 96",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6138145
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/25/0096-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "312 Ark. 502",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1935132
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/312/0502-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "326 Ark. 1073",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        12025908
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/326/1073-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "295 Ark. 560",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1893790
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "565"
        },
        {
          "page": "948"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/295/0560-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "309 Ark. 319",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1906052
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1992,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "326-27",
          "parenthetical": "quoting State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Stockton, 295 Ark. 560, 565, 750 S.W.2d 945, 948 (1988)"
        },
        {
          "page": "467",
          "parenthetical": "quoting State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Stockton, 295 Ark. 560, 565, 750 S.W.2d 945, 948 (1988)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/309/0319-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "283 Ark. 335",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1879917
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/283/0335-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "257 Ark. 90",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8717861
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1974,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "91"
        },
        {
          "page": "225"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/257/0090-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "340 Ark. 439",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1365173
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "443",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Equitable Life Assur. Society v. Rummell, 257 Ark. 90, 91, 514 S.W.2d 224, 225 (1974)"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "quoting Equitable Life Assur. Society v. Rummell, 257 Ark. 90, 91, 514 S.W.2d 224, 225 (1974)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/340/0439-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 23-79-208",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "weight": 9,
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 435,
    "char_count": 6397,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.752,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.497131159349203e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5183502976428356
    },
    "sha256": "b6c1feeb4d84c54e184f70caf63359f999321d6cda2632349f342f11dfbaafb7",
    "simhash": "1:3c5d3767ed06c018",
    "word_count": 1062
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:03:19.609022+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "NEWCOURT FINANCIAL, INC. v. CANAL INSURANCE COMPANY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nAppellant Canal Insurance Company (\u201cCanal\u201d) petitioned for review from a court of appeals decision remanding this case to the Crawford County Circuit Court for a determination of attorney\u2019s fees to be awarded to Appellee Newcourt Financial, Inc. (\u201cNewcourt\u201d), under Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 23-79-208. We granted the petition pursuant to Arkansas Supreme Court Rule l-2(e), and affirmed in part and reversed in part the case decided by the circuit court, remanding the matter to the circuit court for a determination of attorney\u2019s fees, costs, and penalties to be awarded pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 23-79-208 at the trial level. Newcourt now petitions this court for its attorney\u2019s fees and costs incurred in the appeal of this case.\nNewcourt\u2019s petition for fees and costs on appeal first contains a summary of the appeal costs it incurred. These totals include $2,020.70 for the costs of the preparation of the five-volume record, the $100 filing fee, and $273 for the cost of the briefs on appeal. Under Ark. Sup. Ct. Rule 6-7(b), the party prevailing on appeal may recover brief costs not to exceed $3 per page. Here, Newcourt\u2019s brief totaled ninety-one pages at a cost of $273. Rule 6-7 (b) also allows a recovery of the filing fee of $100 and the cost of the preparation of the entire record. As such, Newcourt\u2019s petition for its costs totaling $2,393.70 is granted pursuant to our rules.\nIn addition, Newcourt petitions this court for its attorney\u2019s fees on appeal. Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 23-79-208 and applicable case law, additional attorney\u2019s fees may be taxed on appeal. Here, Newcourt seeks $15,000 in fees and an additional $585.42 in expenses based on 135 hours expended by Newcourt\u2019s attorneys in the appeal. Canal counters the billing totals arguing that the fees and costs on appeal are composed of improper \u201cblock-billing\u201d with overstaffing and unnecessary or excessive work. This court has recognized that the fee provided for in Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 23-79-208 \u201cis allowed only to reimburse an insurance policyholder or beneficiary for expenses incurred in enforcing the contract and to compensate him in engaging counsel thoroughly competent to protect his interests.\u201d Phelps v. U.S. Credit Life Insurance Co., 340 Ark. 439, 443, 10 S.W.3d 854 (2000) (quoting Equitable Life Assur. Society v. Rummell, 257 Ark. 90, 91, 514 S.W.2d 224, 225 (1974)). The fee is not the property of the attorney; instead, it is indemnity to the litigant. Id. Thus, the fee awarded should not exceed the amount that the client is responsible for paying, otherwise the statute would be susceptible to abuse. The purpose of the statute is not to provide a windfall to attorneys; rather, it is to permit the insured to obtain competent representation. Id.\nIn deciding an award of attorney\u2019s fees on appeal under Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 23-79-208, there is no fixed formula to be used in awarding attorney\u2019s fees. Southall v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. of Ark., 283 Ark. 335, 676 S.W.2d 228 (1984). This court has interpreted Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 23-79-208 as providing that \u201c[i]n the event an insurer wrongfully refuses to pay benefits under an insurance policy, the insured may recover the overdue benefits, twelve percent (12%) damages upon the amount of the loss, and reasonable attorneys\u2019 fees.\u201d Northwestern Nat\u2019l Life Ins. Co. v. Heslip, 309 Ark. 319, 326-27, 832 S.W.2d 463, 467 (1992) (quoting State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Stockton, 295 Ark. 560, 565, 750 S.W.2d 945, 948 (1988)). The following factors are relevant in determining reasonable fees: (1) the experience and ability of the attorney; (2) the time and labor required to perform the service properly; (3) the amount in controversy 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 local area; (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 attorney. Parker v. Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 326 Ark. 1073, 935 S.W.2d 556 (1996); Heslip, supra; see also, Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.5. While courts should be guided by the foregoing factors, there is no fixed formula in determining the reasonableness of an award of attorney\u2019s fees. See Shepherd v. State Auto Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 312 Ark. 502, 850 S.W.2d 324 (1993); Stockton, supra; Parker, supra; Arkansas Blue Cross and Blue Shield v. Remagen, 25 Ark. App. 96, 752 S.W.2d 284 (1988). In Heslip, this court affirmed a $19,500 fee on a $36,000 award pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 23-79-208. In Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Alexander, 245 Ark. 1029, 436 S.W.2d 829 (1969), this court upheld a $6,000 fee on a $51,000 recovery under Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 66-3239, the predecessor to Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 23-79-208.\nWhile these cases for attorney\u2019s fees and costs under Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 23-79-208 and its predecessor were decided based on the actions the attorneys took at trial and not on appeal, we think the same rules should apply in consideration of fees on appeal. As such, this court considers the fee bills submitted by Newcourt in light of the guidelines noted above. Here, Newcourt\u2019s attorneys submitted billing records indicating that two attorneys,\" James D. Bradbury, Newcourt\u2019s lead counsel, and D. P. Marshall Jr., an appellate attorney, worked substantially on the appeal of this case. While arguing that both attorneys were necessary in the appeal of the matter, Newcourt did reduce its overall appeal fee by $6,691 to eliminate any duplication of these attorneys\u2019 time in preparation of the appeal. The elimination of this duplicate time spent ultimately reduced the hours spent on appeal to 135 hours from 193 hours. We also award fees based upon our standard $75.00 per hour rate. Accordingly, we grant Newcourt\u2019s motion for attorney\u2019s fees, costs, and expenses on appeal and award to Newcourt $10,125 in fees and $585.42 in expenses.\nMotion granted.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Barrett & Deacon, by: D.P. Marshall Jr. and Jim D. Bradbury, for appellant.",
      "Ledbetter, Cogbill, Arnold & Harrison, LLP, by: Rebecca D. Hattabaugh, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "NEWCOURT FINANCIAL, INC. v. CANAL INSURANCE COMPANY\n99-1249\n17 S.W.3d 83\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered May 25, 2000\nBarrett & Deacon, by: D.P. Marshall Jr. and Jim D. Bradbury, for appellant.\nLedbetter, Cogbill, Arnold & Harrison, LLP, by: Rebecca D. Hattabaugh, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0452-01",
  "first_page_order": 478,
  "last_page_order": 481
}