Boatright v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.
218 So. 3d 962
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Richard and Deborah Boatright (Engle plaintiffs) served four pretrial proposals for settlement (one from each plaintiff to each defendant) via U.S. Certified Mail and included a certificate of service with each proposal. Defendants received but did not accept them.
- After a $32.75 million jury verdict for the Boatrights, they moved for attorneys' fees and costs based on the defendants' failure to accept the proposals under §768.79 and Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442.
- The trial court denied fees and costs in part, ruling the proposals were invalid because they were not served by e-mail as required by Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.516(b)(1).
- The Second District reviewed whether rule 2.516(b)(1)’s mandatory e-mail requirement applies to pretrial proposals for settlement that are not required to be filed when served.
- The court concluded proposals for settlement are excluded from the mandatory e-mail requirement because §768.79 and Rule 1.442 explicitly state proposals shall not be filed (and rule 2.516 applies to documents filed in court).
- The Second District reversed the trial court, holding the Boatrights strictly complied (service by certified mail plus a certificate of service) and remanded for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs; it certified conflict with the Third District.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether rule 2.516(b)(1)’s mandatory e-mail service requirement applies to pretrial proposals for settlement | Boatright: Proposals are not filed when served and thus are not subject to rule 2.516(b)(1); certified mail plus certificate of service satisfies requirements | Defendants: Rule 2.516(b)(1) mandates e-mail for “all documents” served on a party, so proposals must be served by e-mail or be invalid | Held: Rule 2.516(b)(1) applies only to documents filed in court; because proposals are not required to be filed when served, the mandatory e-mail requirement does not apply to them (except when attached to a filed enforcement motion) |
| Whether the certificates of service attached to the proposals complied with rule 2.516(f) form | Boatright: Certificates tracked the form and specified mail, creating prima facie proof of service | Defendants: The certificate reference imports rule 2.516’s e-mail mandate, so certificates are insufficient absent e-mail service | Held: Certificates tracking rule 2.516(f) listing mail as the method are sufficient; they established prima facie proof of service by mail |
| Whether strict compliance requirement invalidates non-e-mail service | Boatright: Strict compliance satisfied by serving (via certified mail) and later filing proposals as attachments when seeking enforcement | Defendants: Strict compliance requires e-mail per rule 2.516(b)(1) | Held: Strict compliance requirement does not compel e-mail here because statutory and rule scheme exclude proposals from 2.516’s filing/service scope |
| Precedential effect of competing district court decisions (Matte/Wheaton) | Boatright: Those cases are distinguishable or wrongly reasoned because they fail to account for rule 2.516(a) scope and §768.79/1.442(d) filing exception | Defendants: Matte and Wheaton support applying e-mail requirements to proposals | Held: Court rejects Matte and Wheaton’s broad application; finds Douglas (federal) persuasive and construes 2.516(a)/(b) together to exclude non-filed proposals from mandatory e-mail service |
Key Cases Cited
- Engle v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 945 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2006) (background on Engle class plaintiffs)
- Diamond Aircraft Indus., Inc. v. Horowitch, 107 So. 3d 362 (Fla. 2013) (statutory departures from common law require strict construction)
- Campbell v. Goldman, 959 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 2007) (failure to strictly comply with proposal-for-settlement rules invalidates proposal)
- Hechtman v. Nations Title Ins. of N.Y., 840 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 2003) (avoid construing statutory text as surplusage)
- Jones v. ETS of New Orleans, Inc., 793 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 2001) (interpretation should give effect to every clause)
- Kuhajda v. Borden Dairy Co. of Ala., LLC, 202 So. 3d 391 (Fla. 2016) (rules of court should not override statute)
- Matte v. Caplan, 140 So. 3d 686 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (e-mail formatting requirement applied to motion service; court here declines to follow on proposals)