District Court Orders Unum to Pay $900/hour in Attorneys’ Fees to Prevailing Plaintiff in ERISA-governed Long-Term Disability Dispute

In Downes v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, No. 23-CV-01643-RS, 2024 WL 4876940 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2024), following the Court’s prior order holding Unum accountable for payment of Plaintiff’s long-term disability benefits, Northern California District Judge Richard Seeborg granted Plaintiff’s request to order Unum Life Insurance Company of America to pay $97,965 in attorneys’ fees for 108.85 hours of work at a rate of $900 per hour. The court also awarded Plaintiff $625.07 in costs.

The court first considered whether Plaintiff achieved the requisite success on the merits that would justify an award of attorneys’ fees under ERISA § 502(g). Since Plaintiff succeeded on the merits by securing a favorable judgment and given that there were no special circumstances cautioning against an award of fees, the court noted that there is a presumption in favor of granting the motion. Because Plaintiff won on her sole cause of action, the court found no need to go through the Hummell analysis.

Applying the lodestar calculation approach, the court establishes a lodestar by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate. Plaintiff sought an hourly rate of $900/hour for her attorney, James Keenley. Unum challenged the rate as being excessive. The court rejected the challenge, relying instead on declarations from attorneys in the ERISA field who charge similar rates and vouched for Mr. Keenley and the reasonableness of his $900/hour rate. The court also cited other decisions where judges in this district awarded rates in this range for partners specializing in ERISA claims. The court also noted that Unum did not provide any opposing evidence, just an argument that ERISA litigation clients do not actually pay $900/hour. Plaintiff provided declarations from other attorneys who testified that they have current clients paying their current hourly rates in this range. The court found that using declarations from attorneys in the field is a long-established method of proof that the Ninth Circuit has endorsed. See Welch v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 942, 947 (9th Cir. 2007). The court also awarded fees based on counsel’s 2024 rate, even for work performed prior to 2024.

The court awarded fees for time spent by other attorneys in the firm who performed less than five hours of work in this matter. Though Unum protested that the work was duplicative, the court explained that “collaboration and brainstorming are an important aspect of legal practice. Even the most competent and experienced attorney does not have all the answers, and therefore attorneys should receive some compensation for consultations with colleagues.” Dragu v. Motion Picture Indus. Health Plan for Active Participants, 159 F. Supp. 3d 1121, 1128–29 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Unum did not appear to object to the total amount of time spent, 108.85 hours. The court found that the application for attorneys’ fees is reasonable and awarded the full amount sought.

If Unum or your insurer has denied or otherwise limited your disability insurance claim, contact us for assistance.