Auto-Owners Insurance v. Southeast Floating Docks, Inc.
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2378
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- Auto-Owners insured Southeast under a contract with Rivermar; Rivermar sued Southeast and Auto-Owners.
- Auto-Owners settled with Rivermar for $956,987 and then sued Southeast for indemnification.
- In the first trial (June 1, 2006), the jury found Southeast not liable; judgment entered for Southeast.
- Auto-Owners moved for a new trial; the district court granted it; retrial scheduled for April 2, 2007.
- On December 11, 2006, Southeast offered to settle under Fla. Stat. § 768.79 for $300,000 conditioned on dismissal with prejudice of all claims.
- Auto-Owners did not accept; in March 2007, the district court granted Auto-Owners summary judgment in its favor; final judgment of indemnification issued.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of offer under Rule 1.442 | Southeast's offer was timely since it preceded the second trial by more than 45 days. | Timeliness required a nexus to the dispositive judgment; offer tied to a second-phase trial so invalid. | Certified for Florida Supreme Court; timeliness unresolved. |
| Joint proposal under Rule 1.442(c)(3) | Offering to resolve all claims against both Southeast and Simpson is permissible; not a joint proposal unless terms fail to attribute to each party. | Treats as invalid joint proposal because it conditions on third-party dismissal without attributing terms to each party. | Certified for Florida Supreme Court; whether conditioning on third-party dismissal creates a joint proposal remains undecided. |
| Application of Fla. Stat. § 768.79 when substantive law is Michigan's | Section 768.79 applies to all Florida civil actions regardless of chosen law; contract cannot defeat procedural statute. | Contractual choice-of-law to Michigan may require applying Michigan law; § 768.79 may be inapplicable. | Certified for Florida Supreme Court; whether § 768.79 applies to cases governed by another jurisdiction's substantive law remains undecided. |
Key Cases Cited
- MCI WorldCom Network Servs. v. Mastec, Inc., 370 F.3d 1074 (11th Cir. 2004) (certification of state-law questions in absence of clear Florida law)
- BDO Seidman, LLP v. British Car Auctions, Inc., 802 So.2d 366 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (§ 768.79 is procedural and applies broadly; conflicts-of-laws analysis avoided)
- Glanzberg v. Kauffman, 771 So.2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (timeliness and post-trial offers cautionary; right to fees if later appeals considered)
- Alioto-Alexander v. Toll Bros., Inc., 12 So.3d 915 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (conditioning on third-party dismissal; distinction on joint proposal concerns)
- Gorka v. Attys' Title Ins. Fund, Inc., 36 So.3d 646 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (invalidity of joint proposals lacking attribution to each party)
- Willis Shaw Express, Inc. v. Hilyer Sod, Inc., 849 So.2d 276 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (joint proposals must attribute terms to each party)