Duplantis v. BROCK SPECIALTY SERVICES, LTD.
85 So. 3d 1206
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Duplantis sues Russo for negligent operation and seeks vicarious liability from Donlen Trust, Brock Enterprises Texas, LLC, and Brock Specialty; Brock Specialty assigns the truck to Brock Enterprises and is itself a defendant.
- Brock Specialty served an amended offer of judgment in Nov 2009 offering $300,000 to settle all claims, conditioned on a broad release including all named defendants, their affiliates, and insurers.
- The offer attached Exhibit A and stated it was under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442 and §768.79; plaintiff did not respond, so the offer was deemed rejected under Rule 1.442(f)(1).
- Trial yielded a jury verdict in Duplantis’ favor for $18,400 (with fault apportioned 8% Duplantis, 92% Russo) and a total verdict of $20,000; Duplantis recovered costs of $35,496.11.
- Judgment against Russo, Brock Enterprises, and Brock Specialty was $18,400 jointly and severally; defendants moved for fees and costs under the offer, and Brock Specialty was awarded $80,816.16 in fees; the trial court granted the motion.
- The appellate court held that the undifferentiated joint offer was improper because vicarious liability was contested and the plaintiff should have received separate offers from each defendant to independently evaluate liability and apportionment, reversing the fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the offer of judgment invalid for lack of apportionment among defendants? | Duplantis | Brock Specialty; reliance on Lamb v. Matetzschk | Yes; offer was invalid as undifferentiated when vicarious liability was contested. |
| May a plaintiff accept a joint offer when one defendant’s liability is disputed? | Duplantis | Brock Specialty; undifferentiated offers allowed in some contexts | No; separate offers to each defendant are required where vicarious liability is in dispute. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lamb v. Matetzschk, 906 So.2d 1037 (Fla. 2005) (apportionment required when multiple defendants with potentially separate liability)
- Andrews v. Frey, 66 So.3d 376 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (approved joint offers when vicarious liability not disputed; notes distinguishable")
- Alioto-Alexander v. Toll Bros., 12 So.3d 915 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (undifferentiated offer analysis in vicarious liability context)
- Toll Bros., 2009 WL ??? (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (context for differentiated offers (note: official reporter cited elsewhere))