Infinity Auto Insurance Company v. Miami Open MRI, LLC, A/A/O Rolando Amador
3D2024-0945
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.Jun 4, 2025Background
- Infinity Auto Insurance Company (Infinity Auto) appealed a trial court order denying its entitlement to attorney’s fees and costs after its proposal for settlement was rejected by Miami Open MRI, the plaintiff.
- The underlying dispute centered on Miami Open MRI's claim for PIP benefits as assignee of Rolando Amador, whose claim Infinity Auto denied due to Amador’s failure to appear for required examinations under oath.
- The trial court had granted summary judgment to Miami Open, but the appellate court (in an earlier decision) reversed, directing summary judgment for Infinity Auto, who then sought attorney’s fees based on its earlier proposal for settlement.
- Miami Open rejected the proposal, arguing it was defective due to ambiguity, mainly concerning Paragraph Eight, which reserved Infinity Auto’s rights in other actions.
- The trial court agreed with Miami Open, finding Paragraph Eight ambiguous and designed to extinguish claims beyond the instant case, and denied fees to Infinity Auto.
- Infinity Auto appealed, arguing the proposal was clear, definite, and only resolved claims in the present lawsuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the proposal for settlement was ambiguous and thus invalid | Paragraph Eight was ambiguous and overbroad, designed to extinguish unrelated claims | Proposal was clear, Paragraph Four limited scope, Paragraph Eight was a reservation of rights only | Proposal was not ambiguous; Paragraph Eight did not affect clarity or scope |
| Whether the proposal improperly sought to extinguish claims not part of the instant action | Sought to extinguish future/pending claims, including those of other providers | Only resolved present claims in complaint; no effect on unrelated claims or claims by others | Did not extinguish unrelated claims; affected only claims in this action |
| Whether strict compliance with Rule 1.442 and section 768.79 was met | Proposal lacked required specificity and particularity | Proposal met all clarity and particularity requirements; no clarification needed | Proposal was sufficiently clear and definite to satisfy the rule |
| Entitlement to attorney’s fees and costs based on rejected settlement proposal | Proposal’s defects preclude entitlement to fees and costs | Entitlement follows from valid offer and appellant’s success in the litigation | Infinity Auto entitled to attorney’s fees and costs |
Key Cases Cited
- State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 932 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 2006) (settlement proposals must be sufficiently clear, but absolute elimination of all ambiguity is not required)
- Allen v. Nunez, 258 So. 3d 1207 (Fla. 2018) (strict compliance demanded for proposals for settlement; must be clear and definite)
- Kuhajda v. Borden Dairy Co. of Alabama, LLC, 202 So. 3d 391 (Fla. 2016) (distinction and interplay between procedural rule and settlement statute)
- Land & Sea Petroleum, Inc. v. Bus. Specialists, Inc., 53 So. 3d 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (proposals must identify claims being resolved to avoid ambiguity)
- Andersen Firm, P.C. v. Brown, 330 So. 3d 546 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (ambiguity may arise if proposal fails to clarify extinguished claims when multiple claims exist)