Andrews v. Frey
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 11909
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Appellants Kimberly M. Andrews and Kyla Andrews sued Shannon D. Frey and Rudolph E. Frey for injuries from an automobile collision; Shannon was alleged negligent and Rudolph vicariously liable under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine.
- Before trial, Shannon Frey served separate proposals for settlement on Kimberly and Kyla, identifying Shannon as the sole offeror and requiring a full release of Shannon and Rudolph with prejudice to all claims arising from the incident.
- The proposals offered $50,000 to Kimberly and $10,000 to Kyla in exchange for a joint dismissal with prejudice; the proposals conditioned acceptance on releases that included Rudolph.
- Both proposals were rejected; after trial, Kimberly’s net judgment (after set-off) was $21,416.67 and Kyla’s was $0.
- The Freys moved for attorney’s fees and costs under the proposal for settlement statute based on the rejection; the trial court awarded fees against Kimberly, totaling $34,739.33.
- The issue is whether the conditional, non-joint proposals for settlement were valid and whether the failure to separately apportion the amounts against Rudolph affected enforceability, leading to fees against Andrews.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the term joint proposal applies when acceptance is conditioned on dismissing a non-offeree against a third party | Andrews argues proposals were joint and improper due to third-party release | Frey argues proposals were not joint; sole offeree Shannon Frey and release of Rudolph does not create jointness | Proposals were not joint; valid despite third-party release |
Key Cases Cited
- Nichols v. State Farm Mut., 851 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (proposal for settlement ends judicial labor; must be clear and definite)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 932 So.2d 1067 (Fla. 2006) (ambiguity voids a proposal if nonmonetary terms unclear)
- Willis Shaw Exp., Inc. v. Hilyer Sod, Inc., 849 So.2d 276 (Fla. 2003) (offer of judgment statute and rule 1.442 strictly construed)
- Attorneys' Title Insurance Fund, Inc. v. Gorka, 36 So.3d 646 (Fla. 2010) (joint proposals conditioned on mutual acceptance problematic)
- Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Southeast Floating Docks, Inc., 632 F.3d 1195 (11th Cir. 2011) (certified question on joint proposal applicability when third-party dismissed)
- Frosti v. Creel, 979 So.2d 912 (Fla. 2008) (de novo review of offer compliance; strictness of requirements)