BRIGHT HOUSE NETWORKS, L L C v. ALBERT B. CASSIDY
242 So. 3d 456
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2018Background
- Five Cassidys sued Bright House in 2012 for breach of contract, asserting Bright House had provided cable services gratuitously but then issued 1099s for the value of services beginning in 2011.
- Bright House served a Proposal for Settlement in January 2013 directed only to plaintiff Albert B. Cassidy; he did not accept.
- The Proposal defined Offeror (Bright House) and Offeree (Albert B. Cassidy) and included: (1) a condition that Offeree "cause this civil action to be dismissed with prejudice as to all claims against Offeror," and (2) a clause stating the Proposal "is to settle and otherwise fully and completely resolve all claims asserted by Offeree against Offeror in this action."
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Bright House, then denied Bright House’s motion for attorney’s fees under Fla. Stat. § 768.79 and Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442, finding Paragraph 4 created an ambiguity about which claims had to be dismissed and thus failed the rule’s particularity requirement.
- On appeal, the Second District reviewed de novo whether the Proposal was fatally ambiguous and whether Bright House was entitled to fees; the panel reversed the denial, finding the Proposal, read as a whole, was sufficiently definite and directed only to Albert B. Cassidy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Proposal for Settlement was fatally ambiguous and therefore failed rule 1.442’s particularity requirement, barring statutory attorney’s fees | The Proposal’s paragraph requiring dismissal "as to all claims against Offeror" is ambiguous and could reasonably leave Albert Cassidy unsure which claims must be dismissed | The Proposal, read as a whole and because it names Albert B. Cassidy as Offeree and limits resolved claims to those "asserted by Offeree against Offeror," clearly applies only to Albert Cassidy’s claims and is not ambiguous | Reversed: Proposal is not reasonably ambiguous when read as a whole; it addressed only Cassidy’s claims and satisfies the particularity requirement, so remand for further proceedings on fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 202 So. 3d 846 (Fla. 2016) (offer-of-judgment/fee statutes must strictly conform to rule; courts should avoid nitpicking and only eliminate reasonable ambiguities)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 932 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 2006) (settlement proposals need not be perfect but must be sufficiently clear to allow informed decision; ambiguity that reasonably affects offeree defeats particularity)
- Miley v. Nash, 171 So. 3d 145 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (a proposal resolving "all claims asserted by" a named plaintiff can be sufficiently definite to satisfy rule 1.442)
- Kiefer v. Sunset Beach Invs., LLC, 207 So. 3d 1008 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (proposal and attached release must be read as a whole; courts should not nitpick language to create ambiguity)
- Sherman v. Savastano, 220 So. 3d 441 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (dismissal is a proper and relevant condition in an offer of judgment)