164 So. 3d 1
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- Citizens Property Insurance issued a homeowner’s policy to Magdiel Perez; Hurricane Wilma (2005) allegedly damaged Perez’s home.
- Perez did not notify Citizens of the loss until nearly four years later; the policy required a sworn proof of loss within 60 days.
- Perez provided some requested information but not within the policy’s required time; Citizens denied the claim and Perez sued.
- Citizens filed two motions for summary judgment; the first was denied, the second was granted on the basis that notice was not promptly provided, resulting in final judgment for Citizens.
- After judgment, Citizens served a proposal for settlement ($1,000) which Perez rejected; Citizens then sought attorney’s fees under Fla. Stat. § 768.79 and Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442.
- The trial court denied fees, finding the settlement offer not made in good faith; Citizens appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Citizens met statutory threshold for fees under § 768.79 | Perez argued the offer was not in good faith, so fees should be denied | Citizens argued it met threshold: offer made, rejected, judgment in its favor | Court: Citizens met threshold; trial court erred applying wrong standard; remanded to award fees |
| Proper standard for good-faith nominal offer | Perez (and trial court following Event Services) urged a standard requiring record to show no exposure | Citizens argued Fourth District standard: reasonable basis to conclude exposure was nominal at time of offer | Court: Adopted the lower standard — reasonable basis to conclude exposure was nominal, not zero exposure |
| Whether Citizens’ exposure was nominal | Perez contended exposure was not nominal given factual disputes | Citizens pointed to four-year delay in notice supporting nominal exposure | Court: Evidence supported nominal exposure; offer was in good faith |
| Whether denial of fees was abuse of discretion | Perez argued trial court properly exercised discretion under § 768.79(7)(a) and rule 1.442(h)(1) | Citizens argued trial court abused discretion by applying overly onerous standard | Court: Trial court abused discretion; reversed and remanded to award fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Land & Sea Petroleum, Inc. v. Bus. Specialists, Inc., 53 So.3d 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (review standard for findings that proposals were not made in good faith)
- Sharaby v. KLV Gems Co., 45 So.3d 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (discusses appropriate standard for nominal settlement offers)
- Event Servs. Am., Inc. v. Ragusa, 917 So.2d 882 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (adopted a stricter formulation requiring no exposure in the record)
- Peoples Gas Sys., Inc. v. Acme Gas Corp., 689 So.2d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (language regarding no-exposure standard)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Sharkey, 928 So.2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (articulates that a minimal offer can be good faith if exposure is nominal)
- Connell v. Floyd, 866 So.2d 90 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (supports the reasonable-basis-to-conclude-exposure-was-nominal standard)