Diecidue v. Lewis
223 So. 3d 1015
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Diecidue was injured while stopping a vehicle that crashed into a little-league field; he sued Lewis and Nowak (negligence) and made a UM claim against his insurer, Allstate.
- On October 5, 2012 Allstate served a proposal for settlement offering $50,000 (inclusive of fees/costs) with an attached release; Diecidue rejected it and the case proceeded to trial.
- Jury apportioned fault 80% to Diecidue and 20% to Lewis, awarded $18,500 in damages, reduced to a net verdict of $8,700 after contributory negligence and collateral recoveries.
- After trial Allstate sought attorneys’ fees and costs under Fla. Stat. § 768.79 and Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442 based on its rejected proposal; the trial court awarded Allstate fees/costs and entered duplicate judgments.
- Diecidue argued the proposal was ambiguous because the attached release required a false representation that he had no "qualifying dependents" who could bring loss-of-consortium claims under § 768.0415 (he in fact had unmarried dependent children).
- The appellate court held the waiver of loss-of-consortium claims in the release was ambiguous and impossible to comply with, reversed the fee award, and ordered the duplicate judgment stricken.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Diecidue) | Defendant's Argument (Allstate) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the proposal complied with rule 1.442’s particularity requirement | The release attached required Diecidue to falsely represent he had no qualifying unmarried dependents able to bring loss-of-consortium claims, making the proposal ambiguous and impossible to accept | The proposal and attached release were facially clear and valid; nonmonetary release terms (including indemnities) may be included and were not ambiguous | The court held the loss-of-consortium waiver was ambiguous/impossible to comply with and the proposal failed rule 1.442(c)(2)(C)-(D) particularity requirement |
| Whether an ambiguous or impossible-to-comply-with proposal can support fee-shifting under § 768.79 | Diecidue: No — an invalid/ambiguous proposal cannot justify fee sanctions | Allstate: Yes — the offer met requirements and justified fees because its monetary offer exceeded the later judgment by the statutory threshold | Court: Fee award reversed because the proposal did not validly comply with rule and statute; invalid proposal cannot support fees under § 768.79 |
| Whether a release can extinguish derivative claims of others (e.g., children) | Diecidue: Release sought to extinguish children’s separate loss-of-consortium causes of action, which belong to the children, not him | Allstate: Release language was meant as a general waiver and was permissible as a settlement term | Court: Notwithstanding derivative nature, children own the cause of action; requiring Diecidue to waive/deny their claims created an impermissible/impossible condition |
| Whether duplicate final judgments may be entered | Diecidue: Trial court entered two duplicate final judgments in error | Allstate: Conceded the duplication was inadvertent | Court: Ordered the later (April 22, 2015) duplicate judgment stricken |
Key Cases Cited
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 932 So.2d 1067 (Fla. 2006) (rule 1.442 aims to prevent ambiguity and requires particularity for nonmonetary terms)
- Gonzalez v. Claywell, 82 So.3d 1000 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (a proposal that is impossible for the offeree to meet is ambiguous and unenforceable)
- TGI Friday’s, Inc. v. Dvorak, 663 So.2d 606 (Fla. 1995) (attorney-fee entitlement under § 768.79 depends on difference between rejected offer and later judgment)
- Lucas v. Calhoun, 813 So.2d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (compliance with rule 1.442 particularity requirements is mandatory)
- Tran v. Anvil Iron Works, Inc., 110 So.3d 923 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (offer compliance under rule 1.442 and § 768.79 reviewed de novo)