211 So. 3d 63
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2017Background
- Plaintiff was injured by an uninsured motorist and sued his insurer (defendant) for uninsured motorist (UM) benefits; the complaint did not seek attorney’s fees.
- Defendant served a proposal for settlement stating it "resolves all claims" and that the proposal "includes all potential claims for attorneys’ fees and costs." Plaintiff did not accept.
- After a jury returned a verdict of no liability for defendant, defendant moved to tax attorney’s fees and costs under section 768.79 and Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442 based on its proposal.
- Trial court denied the motion, finding the proposal failed strict compliance with rule 1.442(c)(2)(B) because it used "claims" instead of "damages," and with rule 1.442(c)(2)(F) because it did not state whether attorney’s fees were part of the legal claim.
- Defendant appealed; the district court reviewed the questions de novo and granted rehearing following the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Kuhajda v. Borden Dairy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether using the word "claims" instead of "damages" in a proposal invalidates it under rule 1.442(c)(2)(B) | The wording is noncompliant and ambiguous; could waive other benefits (e.g., MedPay, PIP) | No ambiguity because complaint only sought UM benefits, so "claims" equated to "damages" here | Using "claims" did not render the proposal ambiguous; proposal was sufficiently clear |
| Whether a proposal must state "whether attorneys’ fees are part of the legal claim" under rule 1.442(c)(2)(F) when fees are not pleaded | Proposal invalid for failing to state whether fees are part of the claim | Not required where plaintiff did not plead entitlement to attorney’s fees | Following Kuhajda, not required if attorney’s fees are not sought in the pleadings |
Key Cases Cited
- Kuhajda v. Borden Dairy Co. of Ala., LLC, 202 So.3d 391 (Fla. 2016) (offers not invalid for omitting attorney-fee language when fees aren’t pleaded)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 932 So.2d 1067 (Fla. 2006) (rule 1.442 requires proposals be sufficiently clear for an informed decision; perfect clarity not required)
- Diamond Aircraft Indus., Inc. v. Horowitch, 107 So.3d 362 (Fla. 2013) (discusses strict compliance principles for offer-of-judgment requirements)
- Bennett v. Am. Learning Sys. of Boca Delray, Inc., 857 So.2d 986 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (an offer need not state it excludes fees when fees aren’t pleaded)
- Carey-All Transp., Inc. v. Newby, 989 So.2d 1201 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (courts should not invalidate proposals for minor ambiguities unless they could reasonably affect acceptance)
Result: Reversed the trial court’s denial; remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine the amount of attorney’s fees and costs payable to defendant pursuant to its proposal.