Pratt v. Weiss
92 So. 3d 851
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Plaintiff filed a 1998 medical malpractice action against FMC Hospital, Ltd. and FMC Medical, Inc. and others alleging negligent hiring/retention and vicarious liability.
- Plaintiff alleged two doctors were agents of the hospital entities and that the two defendants owned or controlled Florida Medical Center. The two hospital entities were treated as a single hospital entity during litigation.
- The two defendants submitted a joint proposal for settlement under § 768.79 and Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442 offering $10,000 to resolve all pending matters.
- The proposal required the plaintiff to sign a full General Release and Hold Harmless Agreement releasing the hospital entities’ agents, but not other named defendants.
- The accompanying Release limited release to the injuries alleged and named future claims as to unnamed agents, and stated the release would not release other named defendants; plaintiff did not accept.
- Trial court ultimately found the proposal enforceable as to the single hospital entity, and awarded attorney’s fees to FMC Hospital despite plaintiff’s loss against FMC Hospital, Ltd. and FMC Medical, Inc.; plaintiff appealed challenging apportionment, ambiguity, and future claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the offer required apportionment between two defendants | Pratt argues the offer failed to apportion between two named defendants. | Defendants contend apportionment was unnecessary because the hospital entity was a single responsible defendant. | No apportionment required; single hospital entity justified. |
| Whether the release language was ambiguous | Release of the hospital's agents could be construed to include physicians. | Release expressly limited to agents of the hospital and did not include other named defendants; not ambiguous. | Release was not ambiguous. |
| Whether the release improperly encompassed future unknown claims | Release apparently covered future claims against the hospital's agents. | Language limited release to injuries and damages alleged, negating future unknown claims. | Release did not require relinquishment of future unknown claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dollar Rent a Car, Inc. v. Chang, 902 So.2d 869 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (apportionment required for offers from multiple plaintiffs)
- Willis Shaw Express, Inc. v. Hilyer Sod, Inc., 849 So.2d 276 (Fla. 2003) (necessity of apportionment among plaintiffs)
- Saenz v. Campos, 967 So.2d 1114 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (de novo review of fee orders under 1.442)
- Cueto v. John Allmand Boats, Inc., 334 So.2d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) (contract interpretation principles for settlement agreements)
- Dorson v. Dorson, 393 So.2d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (settlement interpretation and contract concepts)
- Wallshein v. Shugarman, 50 So.3d 89 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (contract interpretation in settlement context)