W. Riley Allen v. Jairo Rafael Nunez
258 So. 3d 1207
Fla.2018Background
- Plaintiff W. Riley Allen sued Gabriel Nunez (driver) and Jairo Nunez (vehicle owner) after a vehicle collision; Allen served separate identical proposals for settlement (each for $20,000) on Gabriel and Jairo.
- Each proposal named the specific offeree, stated it would settle "any and all claims made in this cause by Plaintiff" against that defendant, and declared the offer inclusive of "all damages ... and any claims for attorney's fees."
- Neither defendant accepted; Allen obtained a final judgment greater than the offers and sought attorney's fees under § 768.79 and Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442.
- Respondents argued the proposals were ambiguous because the phrase "all damages claimed by Plaintiff" could be read to mean acceptance by one defendant might resolve the claims against both defendants.
- The trial court enforced the offers and awarded fees; the Fifth District reversed, finding ambiguity; the Florida Supreme Court granted review and quashed the Fifth District, holding the offers unambiguous and enforceable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a single-offeree proposal that states it resolves "all damages claimed by Plaintiff" is ambiguous when identical offers are made to multiple codefendants | Allen: the text names the singular "PLAINTIFF" and each proposal specifically identifies the named offeree, so the reasonable reading is each offer resolves only Plaintiff's claims against that named defendant | Respondents: the phrase "all damages claimed by Plaintiff" could reasonably be read to mean payment by one defendant would resolve Plaintiff's entire claim against both codefendants, creating ambiguity | Held: Offer unambiguous; read as whole it clearly resolved only Plaintiff's claims against the specifically named offeree, so fees are recoverable |
| Whether rule/statutory particularity requires eliminating every possible ambiguity in proposals for settlement | Allen: rule/statute require sufficient clarity to permit informed decision, not absolute elimination of every ambiguity | Respondents: urged stricter reading to preclude any textual ambiguity that might affect acceptance | Held: Court reaffirmed Nichols standard—only ambiguities that could reasonably affect an offeree's decision render an offer unenforceable; nitpicking disfavored |
| Whether prior district-court decisions finding similar offers ambiguous control | Allen: multiple district decisions (Second and Fourth) support enforcing such offers; Anderson supports reading offers as resolving only claims of the named plaintiff | Respondents: relied on Tran and the Fifth District decision to argue ambiguity exists when offer language could be read to affect other pending claims | Held: Majority found Fifth District misapplied precedent and expressly conflicted with Anderson and several Second/Fourth DCA decisions; quashed the Fifth District |
| Whether a joint or multiple-offer context requires apportionment or special wording when vicarious liability present | Allen: when offers name the specific party and the offeror/plaintiff is singular, no further apportionment or cross-party language is required | Respondents: suggested offers should expressly limit "all damages" to those against the named offeree to avoid confusion in vicarious-liability settings | Held: Not required here; rule 1.442 permits single-offeree proposals and, read in context, offers that name the offeree are sufficient even in vicarious-liability cases |
Key Cases Cited
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 932 So.2d 1067 (Fla. 2006) (proposal need only be sufficiently clear to allow informed decision; avoid nitpicking)
- Anderson v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 202 So.3d 846 (Fla. 2016) (simultaneous offers to multiple defendants by a singular plaintiff construed to affect only the named plaintiff's claims)
- Tran v. Anvil Iron Works, Inc., 110 So.3d 923 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (ambiguity where body of offer and attached dismissal conflicted as to whether acceptance would dismiss all defendants)
- Miley v. Nash, 171 So.3d 145 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (proposal to individual defendant that stated it covered all claims by that plaintiff held sufficiently particular)
- Bright House Networks, LLC v. Cassidy, 242 So.3d 456 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (single-offeree proposal construed as resolving only the offeree's claims; offeree cannot bind other plaintiffs)
- Kiefer v. Sunset Beach Invs., LLC, 207 So.3d 1008 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (proposal and attached release read as a whole were not ambiguous despite broad phrasing)
- Alamo Fin., L.P. v. Mazoff, 112 So.3d 626 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (proposal to owner of vehicle held not ambiguous as to claims against driver; context clarified offeror/offeree scope)
- Land & Sea Petroleum, Inc. v. Bus. Specialists, Inc., 53 So.3d 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (where relationship limited claims, identical offers to different parties were sufficiently clear and not subject to nitpicking)