Gawtrey v. Hayward
2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 19461
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Collier Martin, a four-year-old, was bitten by a pit bull at a Lakeland home where Dozier was kept; sliding glass door was closed but not locked, and Dozier entered the home, causing serious injuries with past medicals of $7,419.97 and anticipated future care.
- Tonette Hayward filed a negligence suit against Janet Gawtrey on behalf of Collier; Scott and Cassandra Gawtrey were not joined as defendants, though named as Fabre defendants on the verdict form.
- Gawtrey served a $1,500 settlement proposal approximately eleven months before trial; Hayward rejected it as not reasonable.
- Jury trial occurred; the verdict found Gawtrey not negligent, resolving the case in her favor; trial involved questions of sliding door opening and allocation of fault among Fabre defendants and Hayward.
- After verdict, Gawtrey sought attorney’s fees and costs under §768.79 and §57.041; trial court struck the proposal as nominal and denied fees and costs; on appeal, the trial court’s order was reversed and remanded for fee/cost award.
- The decision ultimately held that the proposal was made in good faith and remanded for entry of an order awarding fees and costs to Gawtrey.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion denying fees for a good-faith settlement offer | Gawtrey entitled to fees; offer made in good faith despite nominal amount | Court could consider good faith; rejection reason irrelevant | Yes, abuse of discretion; reverse and remand for fee award |
| Whether the trial court failed to make a requisite good-faith finding | Offer in good faith given reasonable basis to expect nominal exposure | Good faith determination depends on trial court’s assessment | Yes, improper lack of good-faith finding; remand for proper ruling |
| Whether costs should be awarded to Gawtrey under §57.041 | Prevailing party entitled to taxable costs regardless of settlement offer | Costs possibly offset by settlement dynamics | Yes, costs awarded; remand for entry of costs consistent with prevailing-party status |
Key Cases Cited
- Camejo v. Smith, 774 So.2d 28 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (entitlement to fees under §768.79 after favorable judgment; good-faith analysis available)
- Donohoe v. Starmed Staffing, Inc., 743 So.2d 623 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (burden on opponent to prove lack of good faith)
- TGI Friday's, Inc. v. Dvorak, 663 So.2d 606 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (good-faith assessment; irrelevant to plaintiff's rejection reasons)
- Wagner v. Brandeberry, 761 So.2d 443 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (reasonableness of rejection is not controlling for good faith)
- Fox v. McCaw Cellular Commc'ns of Fla., Inc., 745 So.2d 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (nominal offers can be made in good faith; analysis of foundation for offer)
- Marko v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 695 So.2d 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (nominal offers and good-faith consideration based on exposure)