Mix v. ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM/SUNBELT, INC.
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 4654
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Mix filed a medical malpractice suit against multiple healthcare providers, including Florida Hospital Orlando.
- Florida Hospital submitted separate 1.442 proposals for settlement to Mix; Mix rejected them.
- After trial, Florida Hospital prevailed and moved for costs and attorney's fees under §768.79 and Rule 1.442.
- The proposals stated a $500 payment and nonmonetary terms; releases were to be prepared by Florida Hospital but were not attached or summarized.
- The trial court awarded costs and attorney's fees to Florida Hospital; on appeal, the rejection of the fee award was challenged based on proposal particularity.
- The question on appeal was whether the settlement proposals were sufficiently definite to support an award of attorney's fees under the offer of judgment statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the proposals for settlement satisfied Rule 1.442's particularity requirement | Mix argues proposals were ambiguous | Florida Hospital asserts releases were adequately specified | Ambiguous proposals failed to enforce fee award |
| Whether ambiguity defeated the attorney's fee award under § 768.79 and Rule 1.442 | Ambiguity precluded enforcement of fees | Ambiguity should not bar fee award if terms clear | Ambiguity defeats the fee award; reverse the attorney's fee portion |
| Whether costs award remains valid despite the fee issue | Costs should be independent of fee ruling | Costs should align with successful defense | Costs affirmed; fee award reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 932 So.2d 1067 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (strict interpretation of 1.442; particularity required; ambiguity defeats settlement)
- Nichols, 932 So.2d 1067 (Fla. 2006) (see above)
- Campbell v. Goldman, 959 So.2d 223 (Fla. 2007) (implementation of §768.79 via Rule 1.442)
- Willis Shaw Express, Inc. v. Hilyer Sod, Inc., 849 So.2d 276 (Fla. 2003) (fee-shifting framework under offer of judgment)
- Stasio v. McManaway, 936 So.2d 676 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (ambiguous settlement proposals are unenforceable)
- Hibbard ex rel. Carr v. McGraw, 918 So.2d 967 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (ambiguity defeats enforceability under 1.442)
- Saenz v. Campos, 967 So.2d 1114 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (definition of ambiguity as multiple possible meanings)