At page 268 Determining settlement offer compliance with procedural rules9 citing cases“proposal for settlement is in the nature of a contract”
- Haas Automation, Inc. v. Fox, 243 So. 3d 1017 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).publishedTherefore, according to Haas, Fisher Auction’s proposal for 14“An appellate court applies the de novo standard of review in determining whether an offer of settlement comports with rule 1.442 and section 768.79 because a ‘proposal for sett…
- Diecidue v. Lewis, 223 So. 3d 1015 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017).published Tran v. Anvil Iron Works, Inc., 110 So. 3d 923, 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (citing Jamieson v. Kurland, 819 So. 2d 267, 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)).
- Anhloan Tran v. Anvil Iron Works, Inc., 110 So. 3d 923 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).publishedJamieson v. Kurland, 819 So.2d 267, 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).
- Wolfe v. Culpepper Constructors, Inc., 104 So. 3d 1132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).publishedJamieson v. Kurland, 819 So.2d 267, 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).
- Saenz v. Campos, 967 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).publishedJamieson v. Kurland, 819 So.2d 267, 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); accord Miami-Dade County v. Ferrer, 943 So.2d 288, 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).
- Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Ferrer, 943 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).published“proposal for settlement is in the nature of a contract”
- Starboard Cruise Servs. v. Deprince, 259 So. 3d 295 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).publishedSee Jamieson v. Kurland, 819 So. 2d 267, 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).
- Hall v. Lexington Ins. Co., 895 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).publishedSee Jamieson v. Kurland, 819 So.2d 267, 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).
- Swartsel v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 882 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).publishedAs one court has explained: "The rule intends for a proposal for judgment to be as specific as possible, leaving no ambiguities so that the recipient can fully evaluate its terms and conditions." Lucas v. Calhoun, 813 So.2d 971, 973 (Fla.…
Other citing cases
- Connell v. Floyd, 866 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).published
v.
Brian D. KURLAND, M.D., individually, and David M. Bernstein, M.D., and Jacob H. Goldberger, M.D., P.A., d/b/a Surgical Associates of Southwest Florida, Appellees.
[*268] Julie H. Littky-Rubin of Lytal, Reiter, Clark, Fountain & Williams, LLP, West Palm Beach, for Appellants.
Jeffrey D. Kottkamp of Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, Fort Myers, for Appellees.
GREEN, Judge.
Janet Jamieson and Robert Jamieson sued the defendants, Brian Kurland, M.D., individually, and Jacob Goldberger and David Bernstein, M.D.s, d/b/a Surgical Associates of Southwest Florida, for medical malpractice. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants.
The defendants filed a motion to tax costs and attorney's fees, which the trial court granted. The Jamiesons argue that the settlement offer to Mr. Jamieson did not adhere to rule 1.442, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, and therefore did not justify the award of costs and attorney's fees. We agree and reverse that award. A separate settlement offer was made to Mrs. Jamieson, which is not a subject of this appeal.
The standard of review for this issue is de novo. See Kaplan v. Bayer, 782 So.2d 417, 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). A proposal for settlement is in the nature of a contract. See BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Krathen, 471 So.2d 585, 587 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), review denied, 484 So.2d 7 (Fla. 1986).
In paragraph three of the settlement proposal, the defendants offered settlement of Mr. Jamieson's claim for $200. However, in paragraph four of that same proposal, the defendants contrarily asserted that "[t]he total amount of the Proposal for Settlement to Plaintiff, ROBERT JAMIESON, is—TWO HUNDRED AND 00/100 DOLLARS ($1,000.00)." Additionally, paragraph three listed certain relevant conditions to the proposal, i.e., that the parties execute a joint stipulation for dismissal with prejudice, that plaintiff execute a general release, and that a confidentiality agreement be part of the release. However, paragraph four provided: "There are no non-monetary [sic] terms of the Proposal for Settlement."
Rule 1.442(a) specifically states that "[t]his rule applies to all proposals for settlement." The rule goes on to provide at (c)(2)(D) that the proposal shall "state the total amount of the proposal and state with particularity all nonmonetary terms of the proposal." The settlement proposal to Mr. Jamieson failed to meet these requirements. See Lucas v. Calhoun, 813 So.2d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). It is inconsequential that no attempt was made by Mr. Jamieson to accept the offer.
This court recently held in Lucas that compliance with subsections (C) and (D) of rule 1.442(c)(2) is mandatory. We further stated, "[t]he rule intends for a proposal[*269] for judgment to be as specific as possible, leaving no ambiguities so that the recipient can fully evaluate its terms and conditions." Id. at 973; see also United Serv. Auto. Ass'n v. Behar, 752 So.2d 663, 665 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).
Because the settlement proposal to Mr. Jamieson did not adhere to the provisions of rule 1.442, it was not a valid proposal for settlement. The Jamiesons concede that only the settlement proposal to Mr. Jamieson was the subject of this appeal, and since the judgment awarding attorney's fees against the Jamiesons was collective against both plaintiffs, our decision does not affect the award against Mrs. Jamieson. We therefore reverse the trial court's order granting cost and attorney's fees to be paid by Mr. Jamieson to the defendants. We remand to the trial judge for further proceedings with respect to the portion of the judgment as it pertains to Mrs. Jamieson.
Reversed and remanded.
BLUE, C.J., and KELLY, J., concur.