Ancel Pratt, Jr. v. Michael C. Weiss, D.O., 161 So. 3d 1268

Pratt sued multiple defendants, including FMC Hospital, Ltd. and FMC Medical, Inc., alleging negligent hiring/retention and vicarious liability; the entities were treated as separate defendants in the complaint.
Defendants served a written proposal for settlement under Fla. Stat. § 768.79 and Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442 offering $10,000 with conditions (general release, each party bear own fees).
The proposal identified the offerors in the text as the two entities (FMC Hospital and FMC Medical) but used a title referencing "Florida Medical Center."
Pratt did not accept; a jury returned a defense verdict and the trial court awarded attorney’s fees and costs to FMC Hospital and FMC Medical under § 768.79 and rule 1.442.
On appeal the Fourth District affirmed, concluding the offer was made by a single hospital entity and thus apportionment was unnecessary.
The Florida Supreme Court granted review and held the proposal was a joint proposal by multiple offerors that failed to apportion the settlement amount, so it was invalid and could not support an award of fees and costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the settlement offer complied with § 768.79 and Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442 so defendants may recover fees and costs	Pratt argued the offer was joint (two offerors) and invalid because it failed to apportion the $10,000 between FMC Hospital and FMC Medical	Defendants argued the offer was made on behalf of a single entity (Florida Medical Center) so apportionment was not required	The Court held the proposal was a joint offer by two entities and, because it failed to apportion the amount, it was invalid under § 768.79 and rule 1.442

Willis Shaw Express, Inc. v. Hilyer Sod, Inc., 849 So.2d 276 (Fla. 2003) (requires apportionment where multiple offerors/offerees are involved)
Lamb v. Matetzschk, 906 So.2d 1037 (Fla. 2005) (apportionment required even where one defendant is only vicariously liable)
Easters v. Russell, 942 So.2d 1008 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (unapportioned joint offer invalid despite inability to logically apportion liability)
Attorneys’ Title Ins. Fund, Inc. v. Gorka, 36 So.3d 646 (Fla. 2010) (conditional joint offers to multiple plaintiffs must apportion and be independently accepted)
Gershuny v. Martin McFall Messenger Anesthesia Prof. Ass’n, 539 So.2d 1131 (Fla. 1989) (statutes awarding attorney’s fees strictly construed)
Campbell v. Goldman, 959 So.2d 223 (Fla. 2007) (strict enforcement of form and content requirements of settlement statute and rule)