Miley v. Nash
171 So. 3d 145
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Kyle Miley (driver) collided with Martha Nash; Glenn Miley (owner) was sued vicariously. Martha sued for bodily injury; her husband Garfield sued for loss of consortium.
- The Mileys admitted fault but disputed causation/damages; the case proceeded to jury trial.
- Pretrial, Kyle served a proposal for settlement offering $58,590 to "resolve all claims...brought by Plaintiff Martha Nash against Defendant Kyle Miley," requiring dismissal of both Kyle and Glenn as to Martha and each side to bear its own fees/costs. The proposal said nothing about Garfield Nash’s separate loss-of-consortium claim.
- Martha rejected the offer; at trial the jury awarded $17,955 for past medical expenses to Martha.
- The trial court denied the Mileys’ motion for fees and costs under §768.79 and Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442, finding the proposal legally deficient for ambiguities, failure to address Garfield’s claim, lack of particularity, and failure to apportion amounts between Glenn and Kyle.
- The Second District reversed, holding the proposal complied with rule/statute and remanding to determine fees and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the proposal sufficiently identified the claims to be resolved | Nash: proposal ambiguous and did not clearly identify which claims would be extinguished | Mileys: proposal expressly sought to resolve "all claims...brought by Plaintiff Martha Nash" arising from the accident, thus identified the claims | Court: proposal sufficiently identified Martha's bodily-injury claims; not ambiguous in the Nichols sense |
| Whether the proposal needed to address Garfield Nash’s loss-of-consortium claim | Nash: omission rendered offer defective because another claim in suit was not referenced | Mileys: Garfield’s claim was a separate offeree’s claim and not implicated by an offer targeting Martha’s claims | Court: not required to address Garfield’s separate claim because he was not an offeree under the proposal |
| Whether the proposal met the particularity requirement (terms/conditions) | Nash: alleged lack of specificity about conditions and effect | Mileys: proposal specified amount, that Martha must dismiss, that each side pays its own fees, and dismissal of Glenn as to Martha — sufficiently particular | Court: terms were specific and executable without judicial interpretation; particularity satisfied |
| Whether apportionment among defendants was required when offer dismissed a vicariously liable owner | Nash: because offer resolved claims against both Glenn and Kyle it was a joint proposal requiring apportionment | Mileys: Glenn was solely vicariously liable; under amended rule 1.442(c)(4) apportionment as to a solely vicariously liable party is unnecessary | Court: although joint in form, apportionment not required as to Glenn because he was solely vicariously liable under rule 1.442(c)(4) |
Key Cases Cited
- D.A.B. Constructors, Inc. v. Oliver, 914 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (general language settling "all claims" can satisfy identification requirement)
- Bd. of Trs. of Fla. Atl. Univ. v. Bowman, 853 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (broad wording settling "any and all claims" is unambiguous)
- Lucas v. Calhoun, 813 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (proposal must state how claims are to be resolved—release vs dismissal—and be particular)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 932 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 2006) (proposal too ambiguous if it fails to clarify which outstanding claims will be extinguished)
- Carey-All Transp., Inc. v. Newby, 989 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (offerees should not "nit-pick" unless ambiguity could reasonably affect acceptance decision)
- United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Behar, 752 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (loss-of-consortium is a derivative but separate cause of action belonging to the spouse)
- Audiffred v. Arnold, 161 So. 3d 1274 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (where an offer resolves claims against additional parties it may be a joint proposal requiring apportionment under prior rule framework)
- Blanton v. Godwin, 98 So. 3d 609 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (a plaintiff’s loss-of-consortium claim can be treated as a separate proposal when appropriate)