Valerie Audiffred v. Thomas B. Arnold
161 So. 3d 1274
Fla.2015Background
- Valerie Audiffred sued Thomas Arnold for personal injuries from a car crash; her husband Robert Kimmons sued for loss of consortium.
- Audiffred served a proposal for settlement under Fla. Stat. § 768.79 / Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442 offering $17,500 and stating both plaintiffs would dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice if accepted.
- Arnold did not accept within 30 days, and the offer was thus deemed rejected.
- After trial, the jury awarded Audiffred $26,055.54 for past medical expenses but awarded nothing for permanent damages or Kimmons’s consortium claim.
- Audiffred and Kimmons sought fees and costs under the offer-of-judgment statute and rule; the trial court granted them, but the First District reversed, holding the offer was a joint proposal that failed to apportion amounts between multiple offerors.
- The Florida Supreme Court approved the First District, holding that a single-offeror proposal that, if accepted, would resolve claims of additional non-offeree parties is a joint proposal subject to the apportionment requirement and must state with particularity how the total is allocated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a single-offeror proposal that would, on acceptance, dismiss claims of additional non-offeree parties must be treated as a joint proposal subject to apportionment | Audiffred argued the offer was made only by her, so apportionment among multiple offerors was not required | Arnold argued the offer effectively resolved claims of two plaintiffs and thus should be treated as a joint proposal requiring apportionment | The Court held such an offer is a joint proposal when it resolves claims of additional non-offeree parties and thus must apportion the amount attributable to each party |
| Whether the proposal satisfied rule 1.442(c)(2)(C)’s particularity requirement | Audiffred contended the offer was clear and unambiguous (both plaintiffs would dismiss) and defendant could evaluate the terms | Arnold contended the offer was ambiguous because it did not state what portion (if any) of the $17,500 applied to Kimmons’s claim | The Court held the proposal was fatally ambiguous for failing to state with particularity the allocation among the plaintiffs and thus invalid under the rule |
| Whether strict construction of apportionment requirement allows exceptions where a non-offeree’s claims are conditioned on acceptance | Audiffred relied on district-court decisions allowing single-offeror conditioned releases of others | Arnold relied on precedent requiring strict apportionment for multiple-offerofferee effects | The Court rejected those district cases to the extent inconsistent and reaffirmed strict apportionment when an offer resolves claims of multiple parties |
| Jurisdictional conflict issue raised by dissent (whether express/direct conflict existed) | N/A (dissent argued no true conflict) | N/A | Majority exercised jurisdiction and disapproved contrary district-court decisions; dissent would dismiss for lack of conflict jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Willis Shaw Express, Inc. v. Hilyer Sod, Inc., 849 So.2d 276 (Fla. 2003) (apportionment requirement for joint proposals must be strictly construed)
- Pratt v. Weiss, 161 So.3d 1268 (Fla. 2015) (standards for reviewing entitlement to fees under § 768.79 and rule 1.442; strict construction of joint-offer apportionment)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Materiale, 787 So.2d 173 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (offeree must know amounts/terms attributable to each offeror; special concern with loss of consortium claims)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 932 So.2d 1067 (Fla. 2006) (proposal must be sufficiently clear to permit an informed acceptance; ambiguity defeats particularity requirement)
- Attorneys’ Title Ins. Fund, Inc. v. Gorka, 36 So.3d 646 (Fla. 2010) (an offer conditioned on acceptance by multiple plaintiffs is invalid if it divests plaintiffs of independent settlement control)