R.J. Reynolds Tobacco v. Ward
141 So. 3d 236
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Plaintiff Erskin Ward sued tobacco companies Reynolds and Liggett for compensatory and punitive damages; jury verdict and final judgment awarded substantially more than Ward’s settlement offers.
- Ward served written offers of judgment that stated punitive damages were included and would be extinguished if accepted, but did not specify any particular dollar amount allocated to punitive damages.
- Ward moved under Fla. Stat. §768.79 and Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442 for attorney’s fees and costs after defendants rejected the offers; the trial court awarded fees and costs totaling about $1.45 million.
- The district court reversed the fee award, holding the offers failed to ‘‘state with particularity the amount offered to settle a claim for punitive damages’’ as required by the statute and rule.
- The court emphasized the Florida Supreme Court’s mandate of strict compliance with offer-of-judgment formalities because fee-shifting under the statute is a sanction that alters the American Rule.
- The panel remanded for determination of fees/costs claimed on an alternative basis (sanctions for unwarranted denials of requests for admission), leaving entitlement found by the trial court unresolved as a nonfinal matter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an offer that extinguishes punitive claims but fails to state a specific dollar amount for punitive damages complies with §768.79(2)(c) and Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442(c)(2)(E) | Ward: Stating that punitive damages are included and extinguished made the effect clear and allowed informed decision; particular dollar allocation not required | Reynolds/Liggett: The statute and rule require stating ‘‘with particularity the amount offered to settle a claim for punitive damages’’; failure to state an amount is noncompliant | Court: Reversed fee award — strict compliance required; offers were noncompliant because they did not state a particular amount for punitive damages |
| Whether the offer-of-judgment provisions should be strictly construed despite apparent clarity and lack of ambiguity | Ward: The offer was unambiguous and capable of execution; particularity satisfied in substance | Defs/majority: Statute and rule must be strictly interpreted because they operate as fee-shifting sanctions contrary to the American Rule | Court: Affirmed strict construction principle; followed controlling Florida precedent requiring exact compliance |
| Whether the trial court’s alternative fee entitlement finding (based on unwarranted denials of requests for admission) is final and appealable | Ward: Entitlement established; remand needed to determine amount | Defs: (Implicit) challenge to any fee award on this alternative ground | Court: That entitlement determination is nonfinal/nonappealable here; amount must be decided on remand |
| Whether prior decisions (e.g., Nichols) permit a more flexible particularity inquiry | Ward: Analogizes to Nichols holding that particularity targets ambiguity; offers here lacked ambiguity | Defs: Nichols is distinguishable because it addressed nonmonetary terms, not a required monetary amount | Court: Distinguished Nichols; held requirement to state an amount is different and mandatory |
Key Cases Cited
- Diamond Aircraft Indus., Inc. v. Horowitch, 107 So.3d 362 (Fla. 2013) (requires strict compliance with offer-of-judgment formalities)
- Campbell v. Goldman, 959 So.2d 223 (Fla. 2007) (strict construction of §768.79 and affirming requirement to follow statutory/formal prerequisites)
- Willis Shaw Express, Inc. v. Hilyer Sod, Inc., 849 So.2d 276 (Fla. 2003) (fee-shifting rules must be strictly construed; joint proposals must allocate amounts)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 932 So.2d 1067 (Fla. 2006) (particularity requirement focused on eliminating ambiguity for nonmonetary terms)
- Fla. Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla. 1985) (discusses American Rule and narrow exceptions for fee-shifting)
- Attorneys' Title Ins. Fund, Inc. v. Gorka, 36 So.3d 646 (Fla. 2010) (rule 1.442 implements the offer-of-judgment statute)