Alamo Financing, L.P. v. Mazoff
112 So. 3d 626
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Mazoff sued Alamo Financing and Alvarado-Fernandez for injuries from a vehicle collision; Alamo Rental allegedly rented to the driver; Graves Amendment precludes vicarious liability generally; Alamo Financing served a proposal for settlement offering $13,335 and a broad general release; the release included parent/subsidiaries and employees and required dismissal with prejudice; plaintiff did not respond within 30 days and the proposal was deemed rejected; trial court later denied attorney’s fees for Alamo Financing under the proposal; on appeal, court held the proposal unambiguous and entitled Alamo Financing to fees and costs; remanded for fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the proposal for settlement was ambiguous and unenforceable | Mazoff argued ambiguity due to release scope | Alamo Financing argued release language was clear | Proposal unambiguous; valid for fees |
| Whether the general release would extinguish Mazoff's claims against Alvarado-Fernandez | Release might extinguish all claims including Alvarado-Fernandez | Release limited to Alamo Financing and its affiliates | Release not broad enough to extinguish Alvarado-Fernandez |
| Whether the proposal could be read as an undifferentiated joint offer including Alamo Rental | Proposal possibly read to resolve all present claims | Proposal targeted to Alamo Financing only | Read as non-undifferentiated; not broad enough to extinguish Alamo Rental claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of Trustees of Florida Atlantic University v. Bowman, 853 So.2d 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (unambiguous release language standard in release provisions)
- Jessla Construction Corp. v. Miami-Dade County School Board, 48 So.3d 127 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (release language including affiliates not invalidating proposal)
- Nichols, 932 So.2d 1067 (Fla. 2006) (release scope must eliminate reasonable ambiguity, not be overly broad)
- Hibbard ex rel. Carr v. McGraw, 918 So.2d 967 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (ambiguity must be reasonably affect the offeree’s decision)
- Carey-All Transp., Inc. v. Newby, 989 So.2d 1201 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (proposal should not nit-pick, must inform decision)
- Excelsior Ins. Co. v. Pomona Park Bar & Package Store, 369 So.2d 938 (Fla. 1979) (contract interpretation where ambiguity remains after ordinary rules)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 932 So.2d 1067 (Fla. 2006) (guidance on when a proposal for settlement is sufficiently definite)