Brinda Coates, etc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, 365 So.3d 353

Coates sued R.J. Reynolds (RJR) for wrongful death of her sister and served two proposals for settlement under Fla. Stat. § 768.79 (one for $75,000; one for $749,000); RJR did not accept either offer.
A jury awarded $300,000 compensatory damages and $16,000,000 punitive damages; after adjustments the trial judgment totaled about $16,150,000.
The Fifth District reversed the punitive damages as excessive and remanded for remittitur or retrial on punitive damages; the Florida Supreme Court accepted review and affirmed the reversal of punitive damages.
Coates moved for recovery of appellate attorney’s fees under the offer-of-judgment statute despite not prevailing in the appellate proceeding; the Court asked briefing on whether § 768.79 requires the movant to prevail to obtain fees.
The Supreme Court held § 768.79 is not a prevailing-party statute, concluding the statute authorizes fee awards as a penalty in some circumstances even to litigants who do not prevail on appeal or at trial.
The Court provisionally granted Coates’s motion for reasonable appellate fees, conditioned on the trial court’s later finding of entitlement and determination of amount; the trial court must assess reasonableness using statutory factors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 768.79 requires the moving party to prevail in the proceeding to recover attorney’s fees	Coates: statute does not require prevailing; it imposes penalties for rejecting reasonable proposals and can award fees even if movant does not prevail	RJR: fee awards under § 768.79 are available only to a prevailing party; movant must prevail to recover appellate fees	Court: § 768.79 is not a prevailing-party statute; the text and structure permit awards to nonprevailing litigants
Whether allowing fees where movant did not prevail will encourage frivolous appeals	Coates: reasonableness limits and judicial discretion prevent abuse	RJR: permitting fees absent prevailing-party requirement risks frivolous or dilatory appeals	Court: rejected categorical concern; trial courts may deny or limit fees based on reasonableness and statutory factors (including merit and frivolousness)

Levy v. Levy, 326 So. 3d 678 (Fla. 2021) (textual interpretation and supremacy-of-the-text principle)
Page v. Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Americas, 308 So. 3d 953 (Fla. 2020) (interpretive principles about statutory text)
Lab. Corp. of Am. v. Davis, 339 So. 3d 318 (Fla. 2022) (statutory interpretation is a legal question reviewed de novo)
Lopez v. Hall, 233 So. 3d 451 (Fla. 2018) (standards for statutory interpretation)
Statler v. State, 349 So. 3d 873 (Fla. 2022) (courts must not add words to statutes under guise of interpretation)
Cassedy v. Wood, 263 So. 3d 300 (Fla. 2019) (characterizing § 768.79 as a penalty statute)
Estate of Sweeney v. Washington, 327 So. 3d 396 (Fla. 2021) (same)
Cent. Motor Co. v. Shaw, 3 So. 3d 367 (Fla. 2009) (same)
22nd Century Props., LLC v. FPH Props., LLC, 160 So. 3d 135 (Fla. 2015) (same)
UCF Athletics Ass’n v. Plancher, 121 So. 3d 616 (Fla. 2013) (same)
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Coates, 308 So. 3d 1068 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020) (appellate decision that was reviewed by the Florida Supreme Court)