Gonzalez v. Claywell
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 12793
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Gonzalez, the defendant in a Florida negligence action, appeals an attorneys' fees award to Claywell under section 768.79 and Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442.
- Claywell offered a proposal for settlement of $240,000 conditioned on GEICO (defendant's insurer) tendering $240,000 to her within 14 days, payable to her and her counsel.
- GEICO was not a party to the lawsuit and there was no determination GEICO would pay more than policy limits.
- The proposal was not accepted; after trial, Claywell recovered $394,029.71 in a jury verdict that was affirmed on appeal.
- The district court reversed, concluding the proposal was invalid and unenforceable because it required an impossible condition and diverted Gonzalez’s control over settlement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of the proposal for settlement under Rule 1.442 | Claywell argues the proposal is valid and enforceable under Rule 1.442 | Gonzalez contends the proposal is invalid because it required a nonparty to tender beyond policy limits and contained ambiguity | Proposal invalid and unenforceable |
Key Cases Cited
- Boston Old Colony Ins. Co. v. Gutierrez, 386 So.2d 783 (Fla. 1980) (insurer may be liable for excess judgment if bad faith breaches policy)
- Attorneys' Title Ins. Fund, Inc. v. Gorka, 36 So.3d 646 (Fla. 2010) (ambiguity and lack of independent control render a proposal invalid)
- Lucas v. Calhoun, 813 So.2d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (particularity requirement for a proposal; ambiguities defeat enforceability)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 932 So.2d 1067 (Fla. 2006) (ambiguity within proposal affects offeree's decision)