Anhloan Tran v. Anvil Iron Works, Inc.
110 So. 3d 923
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Anhloan Tran and Kenneth Moulten were involved in a March 2006 automobile collision; Moulten drove a car owned by Anvil Iron Works.
- Tran sued Moulten and Anvil Iron Works in February 2008 for injuries.
- In October 2008, Tran served separate proposals for settlement on both defendants, each proposing a $60,000 payment for dismissal of the respective defendant.
- Attached to each proposal was a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice stating dismissal of both defendants.
- The body of the proposals only stated dismissal of the named defendant, while the notices indicated dismissal of both defendants, creating facial conflict.
- After trial, Tran prevailed and was awarded judgment; she sought costs and attorney’s fees under § 57.041, Fla. Stat. 2005 and Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ambiguity of settlement proposals | Tran contends proposals clear; notices control | Defendants argue proposals and notices conflict and are ambiguous | Ambiguity exists; attorney’s fees denied |
| Attorney’s fees under 1.442 and 768.79 | Ambiguity bars recovery but merits consideration | Ambiguity defeats fee recovery | Fees denied due to ambiguity; reverse on costs only |
| Costs entitlement | Tran prevailed and is entitled to costs | Discretion to deny costs possible | Costs reversed and remanded for taxable costs to Tran |
Key Cases Cited
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 932 So.2d 1067 (Fla.2006) (particularity requirement and ambiguity standard for settlement proposals)
- Lucas v. Calhoun, 813 So.2d 971 (Fla.2002) (clarifies need for clear, definite terms in settlement offers)
- Jamieson v. Kurland, 819 So.2d 267 (Fla.2d DCA 2002) (de novo review of settlement compliance; punitive statute interpretation)
- Willis Shaw Express, Inc. v. Hilyer Sod, Inc., 849 So.2d 276 (Fla.2003) (strict construction of punitive settlement provisions)
- Grip Dev., Inc. v. Coldwell Banker Residential Real Estate, Inc., 788 So.2d 262 (Fla.4th DCA 2000) (strict construction; ambiguity undermines enforceability)
- Pratt v. Weiss, 92 So.3d 851 (Fla.4th DCA 2012) (contrast on whether attached releases clarify ambiguity)
- Mix v. Adventist Health Sys./Sunbelt, Inc., 67 So.3d 289 (Fla.5th DCA 2011) (definition of ambiguity as multiple meanings; enforcement consequences)
- Saenz v. Campos, 967 So.2d 1114 (Fla.4th DCA 2007) (ambiguity definition and effect on particularity)