Joseph Bradfield v. Mid-Continent Casualty Company
692 F. App'x 978
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Mid-Continent insured Winfree Homes, Inc. and Horgo Enterprises, Inc.; Horgo Signature Homes used them as contractors and failed to disclose that relationship to the Bradfields.
- The Bradfields sued Winfree and Horgo Signature for construction defects; most defects were from subcontractors used by Winfree and Horgo Enterprises.
- Winfree and Horgo Signature settled with the Bradfields: they became jointly and severally liable for $696,108 and assigned their claims against Mid-Continent to the Bradfields.
- The Bradfields sued Mid-Continent; Mid-Continent served a joint offer of judgment under Fla. Stat. § 768.79 and Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442 offering $7,500 to be split by the Bradfields in exchange for a joint release of claims against the insureds and Mid-Continent.
- The Bradfields did not accept the offer; Mid-Continent later obtained summary judgment in the suit and then moved for attorney’s fees based on the unaccepted offer of judgment.
- The district court denied fees, concluding Mid-Continent’s joint, conditional offer was invalid under Florida precedent; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a defendant can recover fees under Fla. Stat. § 768.79 from an unaccepted joint offer conditioned on mutual acceptance by multiple plaintiffs | The Bradfields argued the joint offer was invalid because it required mutual acceptance and did not apportion terms to each offeree | Mid-Continent argued a single joint offer was permissible because the Bradfields’ claims arose from a jointly-held consent judgment and it offered a divisible payment to be split | Court held the joint, conditional offer was invalid under Rule 1.442(c)(3) and Gorka; fees denied |
| Whether Rule 1.442(c)(3) permits a single offer that does not state amounts attributable to each party | Bradfields: Rule 1.442(c)(3) requires apportionment so each offeree can accept unilaterally | Mid-Continent: the offer’s $7,500 could be split and related to a single joint claim, so a single offer should suffice | Court held Rule 1.442(c)(3) requires independent/apportioned offers to multiple offerees; a conditioned joint offer is unenforceable |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorneys' Title Ins. Fund, Inc. v. Gorka, 36 So.3d 646 (Fla. 2010) (establishes that joint offers conditioned on mutual acceptance are invalid under Rule 1.442)
- Graham v. The Peter K. Yeskel 1996 Irrevocable Trust, 928 So.2d 371 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006) (applies the Rule 1.442(c)(3) apportionment requirement to unified claims by spouses)
- Menchise v. Akerman Senterfitt, 532 F.3d 1146 (11th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for denial of attorney’s fees—abuse of discretion)
- Barnes v. Broward Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 190 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 1999) (discusses de novo review of legal questions underlying discretionary rulings)