Kiefer v. Sunset Beach Investments, LLC
207 So. 3d 1008
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2017Background
- Sunset Beach Investments sued multiple defendants, including Michael E. Kiefer Jr., for professional negligence; separate settlement proposals were served by each defendant under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442 and section 768.79.
- Kiefer served a proposal for settlement specifically directed to Sunset Beach and limited in its text to resolving claims "solely as to MICHAEL E. KIEFER, JR."
- The proposal required Sunset Beach to execute an attached release (Exhibit A) and dismiss Kiefer with prejudice (Exhibit B); most release paragraphs expressly named Kiefer and Sunset Beach.
- Two middle paragraphs of the attached release did not expressly name Kiefer and instead referred broadly to releases of claims and attorneys’ fees related to the lawsuit.
- Sunset Beach did not accept any proposals; Kiefer obtained summary judgment and moved for attorneys’ fees based on his rejected proposal. The trial court denied fees, finding the proposal ambiguous because the two release paragraphs lacked Kiefer’s name.
- The Fourth District reversed, holding that read as a whole the proposal and release were sufficiently clear and not ambiguous, so Kiefer was entitled to pursue fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kiefer’s proposal for settlement is ambiguous and thus unenforceable under section 768.79/Rule 1.442 | The proposal and attached release are clear that the offer applies solely to Kiefer and Sunset Beach; the unnamed paragraphs do not create a reasonable ambiguity | The unnamed middle paragraphs create ambiguity about whether the release binds claims against other defendants, making the proposal unenforceable | Proposal is not ambiguous when read as a whole; the unnamed paragraphs do not reasonably affect offeree’s decision — reversed trial court and remanded for fee determination |
| Standard for interpreting proposals/offers when multiple defendants serve separate proposals | N/A (contextual) | N/A (contextual) | Proposals must be read as a whole; courts should avoid "nitpicking" ambiguities that would not reasonably affect acceptance, especially where multiple separate offers provide sufficient information to decide whether to settle with a particular defendant |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 202 So.3d 846 (Fla. 2016) (rejects invalidation of settlement offer where documents consistently limit scope to defined parties and claims)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 932 So.2d 1067 (Fla. 2006) (proposal must be sufficiently clear to allow informed decision without clarification)
- Pratt v. Weiss, 161 So.3d 1268 (Fla. 2015) (eligibility for fees under §768.79 and rule 1.442 reviewed de novo)
- Mix v. Adventist Health Sys./Sunbelt, Inc., 67 So.3d 289 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (ambiguous proposal is unenforceable)
- BDO Seidman, LLP v. British Car Auctions, Inc., 789 So.2d 1019 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (appealability of order denying fees under a settlement offer)