HOUSTON — The 14th Court of Appeals has reversed an award of attorney fees to the Daly & Black law firm in its suit against a public claims adjuster.
Court records show that after Hurricane Ida struck Louisiana in August 2021, Daly & Black represented JC Beauty Depot in pursuing a property insurance claim arising from that storm. Under the firm’s engagement, if a public adjuster was legally entitled to compensation, it agreed to satisfy that obligation from its own contingent fee up to 7% of the recovery.
On Nov. 19, 2021, David Kim and Mosaic Claims Management of Louisiana entered into a public adjusting contract with JC Beauty Depot to assist with investigation and adjustment of its Hurricane Ida claim. Mosaic later asserted it was owed $93,775.13 in connection with the claim and directed its demand to Daly & Black based on the law firm’s engagement terms.
On Aug. 1, 2023, Daly & Black filed a suit seeking a declaration that the Mosaic–JC Beauty Depot public adjuster contract was void under Louisiana law and requesting attorney fees.
Court records show Mosaic’s counsel moved to withdraw, citing communication and payment issues, which the trial court granted.
Daly & Black moved for summary judgment and Kim, pro se, filed a motion for continuance, stating he needed additional time to hire a lawyer.
On Feb. 10, 2025, the trial court granted summary judgment for Daly & Black, implicitly denying the motion for continuance, and declaring the contract null and void, and awarded Daly & Black $21,420 in attorney fees.
On Aug. 27, the 14th Court concluded Kim failed to show that his lack of representation was not due to his own fault or negligence, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Kim’s request for a continuance, but did find that Daly & Black failed to conclusively prove the reasonableness and necessity of its attorney fees.
“We reverse the portion of the trial court’s judgment awarding Daly & Black $21,420 in attorneys’ fees, and we remand solely for redetermination of trial attorney’s fees in accordance with this opinion,” the opinion states. “We affirm the judgment in all other respects.”
Appeals case No. 14-25-00171-CV
