Stevens, Stevens v. Florida Peninsula Insurance Company, 2D2024-0253

Loretta and Gordon Stevens sued Florida Peninsula Insurance Company after a denied homeowners insurance claim involving water damage from a broken drain line, claiming the insurer failed to pay policy benefits.
In 2020, the insurer served settlement proposals, each containing a general release, which the Stevenses did not accept. This was prior to a 2022 amendment to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442, which then imposed stricter limits on nonmonetary terms in such proposals.
The trial court later granted summary judgment for the insurer, ruling the Stevenses failed to provide prompt notice as required by their policy, and subsequently awarded fees and costs to the insurer due to rejection of the settlement proposals.
On appeal, the Stevenses argued the proposals were invalid and unenforceable on several grounds, primarily the inclusion of a general release and alleged ambiguities in the proposals.
The court considered whether rule changes could retroactively affect proposals served and rejected before the rule change and whether the Stevenses' arguments about ambiguity were timely or waived by delay.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of proposal with general release (pre-2022 amendment)	Proposals invalid due to general release terms	Proposals complied with applicable law	Proposals valid; general releases were permissible before the 2022 rule change
Ambiguity in settlement proposals	Proposals were ambiguous and unenforceable	No timely objection; proposals clear	Proposals not ambiguous; objections not timely and insufficient to render invalid
Applicability of 2022 rule amendment to earlier proposals	Rule change should invalidate 2020 proposals	Only applicable to proposals after effective date	Rule amendment did not apply to proposals served and rejected prior to July 1, 2022
Requirement to promptly object to defects in proposal	Offeree not required to promptly object	Failure to object undermines later claim	No strict waiver for failure to object, but prompt objection is 'better practice'

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 932 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 2006) (Proposals for settlement must be sufficiently clear; general releases permissible pre-2022 amendment)
Willis Shaw Express, Inc. v. Hilyer Sod, Inc., 849 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 2003) (Section 768.79 and Rule 1.442 must be strictly construed as in derogation of common law)
Anderson v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 202 So. 3d 846 (Fla. 2016) (Strict construction still requires clarity, promotes settlement)
In re Amendments to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442, 345 So. 3d 845 (Fla. 2022) (Amendment restricted nonmonetary terms in proposals for settlement, effective prospectively)
Love v. State, 286 So. 3d 177 (Fla. 2019) (Procedural changes apply to pending cases prospectively, not retroactively to completed procedural acts)
Diecidue v. Lewis, 223 So. 3d 1015 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) ("Better practice" for offeree to raise ambiguities promptly, but not a waiver rule)