United Automobile Ins. Co. v. Partners in Health Chiropractic Center, 17-0666

Plaintiff Partners in Health sued United Automobile Insurance (United Auto) for unpaid PIP bills assigned by patient Cecilia Gerlin after United Auto denied the claim.
United Auto served a nominal proposal for settlement before trial; Partners in Health did not accept it.
At trial the jury found Partners in Health’s services were not related to the 2003 auto accident; United Auto then moved for entitlement to attorney’s fees under Fla. Stat. § 768.79 and Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442 based on its proposal.
The county court denied fees, finding (1) protracted litigation, (2) earlier favorable rulings for Partners in Health (later reversed on appeal), (3) United Auto had no reasonable expectation the offer would be accepted, and (4) the record did not show United Auto had no exposure when the offer was made.
The circuit court, reviewing for abuse of discretion, rejected the first three grounds but affirmed based on an inadequate record on appeal (missing trial transcript and certain medical records) and the need to resolve factual disputes.
The Florida Supreme Court dismissed United Auto’s certiorari petition for lack of jurisdiction, concluding the circuit court applied correct law and afforded due process.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether nominal proposal was made in good faith	Offer was not in good faith because litigation was lengthy and earlier rulings favored Partners in Health	Offer was in good faith because United Auto had a reasonable basis to conclude exposure was nominal	Court: Good-faith inquiry focuses on whether offeror had reasonable basis to conclude exposure was nominal; protracted litigation and prior reversed rulings are not dispositive
Whether defendant needed reasonable expectation the offer would be accepted	United Auto lacked reasonable expectation, showing bad faith	Whether defendant expected acceptance is irrelevant; intent to settle matters	Court: Expectation of acceptance irrelevant; intent to settle and consistency with facts control
Whether defendant had to show no exposure at time of offer	Partners argued United Auto had exposure, undermining nominal offer	United Auto argued it only needed a reasonable basis to conclude exposure was nominal	Court: Defendant need only show a reasonable basis to conclude exposure was nominal, not absolute no-exposure
Whether appellate record was adequate for review	Partners relied on gaps in record to uphold denial	United Auto argued record supported fee entitlement (pointing to peer review and records)	Court: Circuit court properly affirmed under Applegate because missing transcript/records prevented meaningful review; affirmance not a legal error or denial of due process

Custer Med. Ctr. v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 62 So. 3d 1086 (recognition of narrow second-tier certiorari review standard)
State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Laughlin-Alfonso, 118 So. 3d 314 (abuse of discretion standard for good-faith determination)
Peoples Gas Sys., Inc. v. Acme Gas Corp., 689 So. 2d 300 (offeror must have reasonable foundation for settlement offer)
Schmidt v. Fortner, 629 So. 2d 1036 (belief that offer will be rejected does not alone show bad faith if intent to settle exists)
Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (appellant must provide adequate record for appellate review)
Far Niente, LLC v. City of Key West, 209 So. 3d 43 (second-tier certiorari review is narrow; only grievous errors reviewable)
Isaias v. H.T. Hackney Co., 159 So. 3d 1002 (nominal offer must be supported by reasonable basis to conclude exposure was nominal)
Event Servs. Am., Inc. v. Ragusa, 917 So. 2d 882 (nominal offers should be stricken absent reasonable basis for nominal exposure)
Fox v. McCaw Cellular Commc’ns of Fla., Inc., 745 So. 2d 330 (good-faith offer analysis is fact-intensive and discretionary)