case, it may apply a.multiplier of2.0 to 2.5. Accordingly, our Rowe decision ismodified toallowamul tipli erfrom lto2. $. • Sta,1dard·G1itlraitty lilsu1"c111ce Co, v. Qua1ist1:oin, 555 So. 2d 828'; 834 :(Fla. 1990),. Thus; based upon all of the foregoing:factors, Defendant AronbergrespectfuUy submits that,amu1