UCF Athletics Ass'n v. Plancher
121 So. 3d 616
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Plaintiff Enock Plancher (personal representative) sued UCF Athletics Association, Inc. (UCFAA) for negligence after his son died during football practice; a jury returned a $10 million verdict.
- Plaintiff had served an unaccepted offer of judgment for $4.75 million prior to trial and later moved for attorney’s fees and costs under Florida’s offer-of-judgment statute (§ 768.79).
- The trial court awarded plaintiff $1,897,720 in attorney’s fees and $524,931.22 in costs; those awards were appealed.
- In a companion appeal, this court held UCFAA was entitled to sovereign immunity, reducing the recoverable judgment against UCFAA to $200,000 under § 768.28(5).
- Because the statutory fee-shifting under § 768.79 depends on the judgment obtained (not the jury verdict), the court found plaintiff’s judgment did not exceed the offer by the required 25% and reversed the fee and cost awards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees under § 768.79 because jury verdict exceeded offer | Fees are warranted because the jury verdict ($10M) is more than 25% above the $4.75M offer | Fees should be measured by the final judgment, not the verdict; sovereign immunity limits judgment to $200K | Held: Fees are measured by the judgment obtained; verdict amount irrelevant — plaintiff not entitled to fees because net judgment is $200K, below the 25% threshold |
| How to calculate “judgment obtained” under § 768.79 when sovereign-immunity cap applies | Plaintiff: include post-offer reductions only if they do not change entitlement to fees | Defendant: include the net judgment and any post-offer reductions; sovereign-immunity cap controls and prevents meeting fee threshold | Held: “Judgment obtained” equals net judgment (after sovereign-immunity cap and other reductions); cap prevented reaching the 25% threshold so no fees awarded |
| Whether insurer (Great American) can be separately liable for fee award though it did not assert sovereign immunity earlier | Plaintiff: insurer did not assert sovereign immunity, so fee award should stand as to insurer | Defendant: insurer was joined only after final judgment; sovereign immunity attached to the judgment before insurer was added | Held: Court rejected plaintiff’s narrow argument; sovereign immunity limits attach to the underlying judgment before insurer joinder, undermining plaintiff’s position |
Key Cases Cited
- Perez v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 721 So.2d 409 (Fla. 3d DCA) (distinguishing verdict from judgment)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Sutton, 707 So.2d 760 (Fla. 2d DCA) (damages for fee-trigger measured by judgment not verdict)
- White v. Steak and Ale of Florida, Inc., 816 So.2d 546 (Fla. 2002) (for offer-of-judgment, judgment includes net damages plus post-offer reductions that would have applied on offer date)
- Tierra Holdings, Ltd. v. Mercantile Bank, 78 So.3d 558 (Fla. 1st DCA) (offer-of-judgment statute must be strictly construed)
- Willis Shaw Express, Inc. v. Hilyer Sod, Inc., 849 So.2d 276 (Fla. 2003) (strict construction of fee-shifting statutes)
- Sarkis v. Allstate Ins. Co., 863 So.2d 210 (Fla. 2003) (penal provisions construed against the party subject to the penalty)
- Hellmann v. City of Orlando, 634 So.2d 245 (Fla. 5th DCA) (attorney-fee award against governmental entity limited to 25% of judgment)
- Pinellas County v. Bettis, 659 So.2d 1365 (Fla. 2d DCA) (attorney-fee liability subject to statutory tort cap)