Susanne L. Kuhajda v. Borden Dairy Company of Alabama, LLC., 202 So. 3d 391

Plaintiff Susanne Kuhajda served identical offers of judgment on Borden Dairy and its employee that stated they included costs, interest, and all damages recoverable under the complaint and by law.
Kuhajda did not plead a claim for attorney’s fees in her complaint.
A jury verdict exceeded the offers, and the trial court awarded attorney’s fees under Fla. Stat. § 768.79 and Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442.
The First District reversed, holding an offer must strictly comply with rule 1.442(c)(2)(F) (i.e., state whether it includes attorney’s fees) even when fees were not pleaded.
The First District certified conflict with the Fourth District’s decision in Bennett, which reached the opposite conclusion.
The Supreme Court of Florida reviewed whether failure to state attorney’s fees in an offer invalidates the offer when fees were not sought in the pleadings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an offer of judgment that omits whether it includes attorney’s fees is invalid when the plaintiff did not plead a claim for fees	Kuhajda: omission does not create ambiguity; offer valid and entitles plaintiff to fees under § 768.79 because fees were not claimed in the complaint	Borden: rule 1.442(c)(2)(F) requires strict compliance regardless of whether fees were pleaded; omission invalidates the offer	Court held the offer is not invalid when attorney’s fees are not sought in the pleadings; rule 1.442(c)(2)(F) need not be strictly enforced in that situation
Whether procedural rule 1.442 should be strictly construed to defeat a statute it implements	Kuhajda: procedural requirements should not be applied to override or defeat the substantive statute; rule irrelevant when fees not sought	Borden: strict construction of rule applies to all its provisions	Court held procedural rule should not be strictly construed to defeat the statute; strict enforcement of rule 1.442(c)(2)(F) is unnecessary where § 768.79 is not implicated by a pleaded fee claim

Diamond Aircraft Indus. v. Horowitch, 107 So. 3d 362 (Fla. 2013) (offer invalid where complaint demanded fees and the offer failed to state whether it included fees)
Bennett v. Am. Learning Sys. of Boca Delray, Inc., 857 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (offer need not state whether it includes fees when plaintiff did not plead entitlement to fees)
Audiffred v. Arnold, 161 So. 3d 1274 (Fla. 2015) (strict construction applied to rule/statute governing offers of judgment)
Pratt v. Weiss, 161 So. 3d 1268 (Fla. 2015) (eligibility for fees under § 768.79 reviewed de novo; strict construction of rule/statute)
Attorneys’ Title Ins. Fund, Inc. v. Gorka, 36 So. 3d 646 (Fla. 2010) (rule and statute strictly construed)
Willis Shaw Exp., Inc. v. Hilyer Sod, Inc., 849 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 2003) (amendment of rule 1.442 and its procedural implementation of § 768.79)
Lamb v. Matetzschk, 906 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 2005) (reaffirming strict construction of rule 1.442)
TGI Friday’s, Inc. v. Dvorak, 663 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1995) (legislative modification of American Rule via § 768.79)
Stockman v. Downs, 573 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 1991) (attorney’s-fee entitlement generally must be pleaded unless the opposing party has notice and fails to object)