Opinion ID: 2585283
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The superior court's explanation concerning the award for the coverage portion of the case was adequate.

Text: With regard to the award concerning the coverage aspect of this case, USAA argues that the trial court's explanation for awarding 75% of actual fees was insufficient to meet Rule 82(b)(3)'s requirement that trial courts explain their reasons for deviating from Rule 82's presumptive awards. This court has held that [i]n general, a trial court has broad discretion to award Rule 82 attorney's fees in amounts exceeding those prescribed by the schedule of the rule, so long as the court specifies in the record its reasons for departing from the schedule. [15] In this case, the court explained its rationale for deviating from the rule's schedule: In this case, the issue was of substantial importance to defendant and was vigorously defended by it. The issues were unique and plaintiff's efforts were effective, efficient and although driven by economic motive, also had broad beneficial effect for the public. These reasons readily fall within some of the reasons for deviation that the rule contemplates. The court's explanation relates to the complexity of the litigation; [16] the reasonableness of the attorneys' hourly rates and the number of hours expended; [17] the relationship between the amount of work performed and the significance of the matters at stake; [18] and the extent to which the fees incurred by the prevailing party suggest that they had been influenced by considerations apart from the case at bar, such as a desire to discourage claims by others against the prevailing party or its insurer. [19] We conclude that it meets the requirements of Rule 82(b)(3).