Home
Menu
904-383-7448
Florida Statute 768.79 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 768.79 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 768.79

The 2022 Florida Statutes (including 2022 Special Session A and 2023 Special Session B)

Title XLV
TORTS
Chapter 768
NEGLIGENCE
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 768.79
768.79 Offer of judgment and demand for judgment.
(1) In any civil action for damages filed in the courts of this state, if a defendant files an offer of judgment which is not accepted by the plaintiff within 30 days, the defendant shall be entitled to recover reasonable costs and attorney’s fees incurred by her or him or on the defendant’s behalf pursuant to a policy of liability insurance or other contract from the date of filing of the offer if the judgment is one of no liability or the judgment obtained by the plaintiff is at least 25 percent less than such offer, and the court shall set off such costs and attorney’s fees against the award. Where such costs and attorney’s fees total more than the judgment, the court shall enter judgment for the defendant against the plaintiff for the amount of the costs and fees, less the amount of the plaintiff’s award. If a plaintiff files a demand for judgment which is not accepted by the defendant within 30 days and the plaintiff recovers a judgment in an amount at least 25 percent greater than the offer, she or he shall be entitled to recover reasonable costs and attorney’s fees incurred from the date of the filing of the demand. If rejected, neither an offer nor demand is admissible in subsequent litigation, except for pursuing the penalties of this section.
(2) The making of an offer of settlement which is not accepted does not preclude the making of a subsequent offer. An offer must:
(a) Be in writing and state that it is being made pursuant to this section.
(b) Name the party making it and the party to whom it is being made.
(c) State with particularity the amount offered to settle a claim for punitive damages, if any.
(d) State its total amount.

The offer shall be construed as including all damages which may be awarded in a final judgment.

(3) The offer shall be served upon the party to whom it is made, but it shall not be filed unless it is accepted or unless filing is necessary to enforce the provisions of this section.
(4) An offer shall be accepted by filing a written acceptance with the court within 30 days after service. Upon filing of both the offer and acceptance, the court has full jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.
(5) An offer may be withdrawn in writing which is served before the date a written acceptance is filed. Once withdrawn, an offer is void.
(6) For a breach of contract action, a property insurer may make a joint offer of judgment or settlement that is conditioned on the mutual acceptance of all the joint offerees.
(7) Upon motion made by the offeror within 30 days after the entry of judgment or after voluntary or involuntary dismissal, the court shall determine the following:
(a) If a defendant serves an offer which is not accepted by the plaintiff, and if the judgment obtained by the plaintiff is at least 25 percent less than the amount of the offer, the defendant shall be awarded reasonable costs, including investigative expenses, and attorney’s fees, calculated in accordance with the guidelines promulgated by the Supreme Court, incurred from the date the offer was served, and the court shall set off such costs in attorney’s fees against the award. When such costs and attorney’s fees total more than the amount of the judgment, the court shall enter judgment for the defendant against the plaintiff for the amount of the costs and fees, less the amount of the award to the plaintiff.
(b) If a plaintiff serves an offer which is not accepted by the defendant, and if the judgment obtained by the plaintiff is at least 25 percent more than the amount of the offer, the plaintiff shall be awarded reasonable costs, including investigative expenses, and attorney’s fees, calculated in accordance with the guidelines promulgated by the Supreme Court, incurred from the date the offer was served.

For purposes of the determination required by paragraph (a), the term “judgment obtained” means the amount of the net judgment entered, plus any postoffer collateral source payments received or due as of the date of the judgment, plus any postoffer settlement amounts by which the verdict was reduced. For purposes of the determination required by paragraph (b), the term “judgment obtained” means the amount of the net judgment entered, plus any postoffer settlement amounts by which the verdict was reduced.

(8)(a) If a party is entitled to costs and fees pursuant to the provisions of this section, the court may, in its discretion, determine that an offer was not made in good faith. In such case, the court may disallow an award of costs and attorney’s fees.
(b) When determining the reasonableness of an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to this section, the court shall consider, along with all other relevant criteria, the following additional factors:
1. The then apparent merit or lack of merit in the claim.
2. The number and nature of offers made by the parties.
3. The closeness of questions of fact and law at issue.
4. Whether the person making the offer had unreasonably refused to furnish information necessary to evaluate the reasonableness of such offer.
5. Whether the suit was in the nature of a test case presenting questions of far-reaching importance affecting nonparties.
6. The amount of the additional delay cost and expense that the person making the offer reasonably would be expected to incur if the litigation should be prolonged.
(9) Evidence of an offer is admissible only in proceedings to enforce an accepted offer or to determine the imposition of sanctions under this section.
History.s. 58, ch. 86-160; s. 48, ch. 90-119; s. 1175, ch. 97-102; s. 24, ch. 2022-271.

F.S. 768.79 on Google Scholar

F.S. 768.79 on Casetext

Amendments to 768.79


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 768.79
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 768.79.



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

10 Cases from Casetext:Date Descending

U.S. Supreme Court11th Cir. - Ct. App.11th Cir. - MD FL11th Cir. - ND FL11th Cir. - SD FLFed. Reg.Secondary Sources - All
  1. Plaintiff moves the court to determine her entitlement to attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Middle District of Florida Local Rule 7.01(b), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2), Section 768.79 of the Florida Statutes, and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442. (Motion, Dkt. 169.) Defendant opposes the Motion (Dkt. 171), and Plaintiff has filed a reply to Defendant's opposition (Dkt. 174). Upon consideration and for the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's Motion is denied without prejudice.
  2. The parties use the terms "proposal for settlement" and "offer of judgment" interchangeably. Compare § 768.79 (entitled "Offer of judgment and demand for judgment."), with Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442 (entitled "Proposals for Settlement"). Faced with these inconsistencies, we elect to use the statutory language. See Starboard Cruise Servs., Inc. v. DePrince, 259 So.3d 295, 298 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) ("The terms 'proposal for settlement' and 'offers of judgment' are used interchangeably, however section 768.79 uses the term 'offers of judgment.' ").
    PAGE 2
  3. “Florida courts follow the ‘American Rule' that attorney's fees may only be awarded pursuant to an entitling statute or agreement among the parties.” Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Alvis, 72 So.3d 314, 317 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (citing Dade Cnty v. Pena, 664 So.2d 959, 960 (Fla. 1995)). The Eleventh Circuit has stated that “Florida's offer of judgment statute, Fla. Stat. § 768.79, is applicable to cases, like this one, that are tried in the State of Florida[.]” McMahan v. Toto, 311 F.3d 1077, 1081 (11th Cir. 2002); Steffen v. Akerman Senterfitt, No. 804CV1693T24MSS, 2007 WL 9723389, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 20, 2007) (“Florida Statute § 768.79 is substantive in nature for Erie purposes and applies in diversity cases in federal court in Florida.”).
    PAGE 4
  4. Derivative lawsuits are not exempt from section 768.79. By its plain terms, section 768.79 applies to "any civil action for damages" and does not contain an exception for shareholder derivative suits. § 768.79(1), Fla. Stat. (2015). Although rule 1.442 formerly prohibited the use of proposals for settlement in shareholder derivative actions, that prohibition was removed in a 1996 amendment to Rule 1.442. Compare In re Amends. to Fla. R. Civ. Proc., 682 So.2d 105, 106 (Fla. 1996) (adopting version of rule 1.442 that did not contain prohibition on sanction for rejecting proposal for settlement in a shareholder derivative suit), with The Fla. Bar Re Amend. to Rules of Civ. Proc., Rule 1.442 (Offer of Judgment), 550 So.2d 442, 444 (Fla. 1989) (prohibiting sanctions under rule 1.442 in a shareholder derivative suit).
    PAGE 9
  5. 5. The Court FINDS that Defendants are entitled to attorney's fees pursuant to the May 25, 2021 proposals for settlement and Section 768.79 of the Florida Statutes;
    PAGE 8
  6. The Court has already determined that Defendant is entitled to an award of attorneys' fees pursuant to the February 1, 2022 proposal for settlement, and Fla. Stat. § 768.79. Doc. No. 56; see also Doc. No. 55. Thus, this Report only concerns the quantification of that award.
    PAGE 4
  7. In MX Investments, Inc. v. Crawford, 700 So.2d 640 (Fla. 1997), the Florida Supreme Court concluded that to be entitled to an award of attorney fees under § 768.79 based on a dismissal of the case, the dismissal must be with prejudice. Id. at 642. In explaining what constitutes a dismissal with prejudice, the court made it clear that for purposes of the offer-of-judgment statute, the dismissal must represent a judgment of no liability. Id. Thus, an involuntary dismissal, a dismissal with prejudice, and a second voluntary dismissal (which serves as adjudication on the merits pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(a)(1)) all qualify as a basis of an award of attorney fees under § 768.79. Smith v. Loews Miami Beach Hotel Operating Co., 35 So.3d 101, 103 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).
    PAGE 6
  8. 4. The court retains jurisdiction over this matter to address the further issue raised by the parties, if applicable, as to whether Florida Statutes section 768.79 and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442 apply to this matter as reflected in the Joint Pretrial Statement. (Dkt. 114 at 15.)
    PAGE 80
  9. Florida's offer of judgment statute does not provide explicit authorization for the award of non-taxable costs in federal court. Id. (“[F]ind[ing] that [movant] can not [sic] receive any costs under Florida Statute § 768.79 beyond those already awarded under § 1920.”); Illoominate Media, Inc., 2021 WL 4030008, at *7 (“[C]osts not enumerated under 28 U.S.C. § 1920, such as travel expenses and expert fees, are not allowed, even under Section 768.79.”).
    PAGE 18
  10. Section 627.736(8) provides in pertinent part: "With respect to any dispute under the provisions of ss. 627.730-627.7405 . . . between an assignee of an insured's rights and the insurer, the provisions of ss. 627.428 and 768.79 apply, except as provided in subsections (10) and (15)." (emphasis added). Given that the parties' dispute arose under one or more of the above provisions, Baker Chiro would be entitled to recover attorney's fees under 627.428, unless one of the specifically mentioned exceptions applied. The parties agreed that the subsection (15) exception did not apply; therefore, we will focus on subsection (10).
    PAGE 11

    Cases from cite.case.law:

    R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, v. LEWIS,, 275 So. 3d 747 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

    . . . judgment was entered, Lewis sought his taxable costs and moved for attorney's fees pursuant to section 768.79 . . . White held that "the 'judgment obtained' pursuant to section 768.79 includes the net judgment for damages . . . Section 768.79(6)(b) provides that an award for attorney's fees and costs must be "calculated in accordance . . .

    SUAREZ, v. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION,, 275 So. 3d 688 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

    . . . We affirm as to entitlement to fees, as the Insurer's proposal for settlement complied with section 768.79 . . . See § 768.79(1), Fla. Stat. (2018) ; Reliance Mut. Life Ins. Co. of Ill. v. . . .

    PETRI POSITIVE PEST CONTROL, INC. a v. CCM CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. a d b a, 271 So. 3d 1001 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

    . . . threshold amount to trigger an award of attorney's fees pursuant to the offer of judgment statute, section 768.79 . . . CCM served an amended offer of judgment in 2014, pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes. . . . CCM moved for attorney's fees pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes, the offer of judgment statute . . . Section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2014), governs offers of judgment and provides: (1) In any civil action . . . The White court then concluded: [T]he "judgment obtained" pursuant to section 768.79 includes the net . . .

    RESTAL, v. A. NOCERA,, 268 So. 3d 270 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

    . . . See § 768.79, Fla. Stat. (2012) ; see also Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442. . . .

    MARCO MARINE CONSTRUCTION, INC. v. KOPRAS,, 268 So. 3d 259 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

    . . . After Kopras prevailed in her negligence action, she filed a motion for fees pursuant to section 768.79 . . . doctrine of stare decisis required it to apply Juneau Tanker and to award fees pursuant to section 768.79 . . . Stat., § 768.79 and F. R. C. P., Rule 1.442. . . . Fla. 1995) (rejecting Modesto and holding that section 768.79 conflicts with the American Rule and that . . . Fla. 1997) (agreeing with Garan that section 768.79 conflicts with the American Rule). . . .

    J. WEINER, v. MAULDEN,, 267 So. 3d 1045 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

    . . . Appellant then moved for entitlement to attorneys' fees under section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2016) . . . According to section 768.79(1) : In any civil action for damages ... if a defendant files an offer of . . . The mandatory language of section 768.79 reinforces the notion that a proper offer automatically creates . . . "Thus, an offer that complies with section 768.79 and [Florida Rule of Civil Procedure] 1.442 creates . . . to Maulden following trial was sufficient to trigger Appellant's entitlement to fees under section 768.79 . . .

    BARBEQUE INTEGRATED, INC. v. WIN- DEVELOPMENT, LLC,, 266 So. 3d 1291 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

    . . . ("BBI"), appeals the trial court's order denying its motion for attorney's fees filed under section 768.79 . . . of Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.516 rendered an offer of judgment served under section 768.79 . . . quashed the Third District Court's decision in Wheaton , holding that the plain language of section 768.79 . . .

    L. SMITH, Sr. v. R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO., 369 F. Supp. 3d 1269 (M.D. Fla. 2019)

    . . . Doc. 288), in which he recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees under § 768.79 . . . motion because Plaintiff failed to make an offer of judgment within the timeframe required by Section 768.79 . . .

    KEMPTON, v. MCCOMB,, 266 So. 3d 272 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

    . . . the trial court's order awarding attorney's fees and costs to Lawrence McComb, pursuant to section 768.79 . . . Cichon, 79 So.3d 950 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (reversing order granting attorney's fees pursuant to section 768.79 . . .

    STEAK N SHAKE OPERATIONS, INC. v. DAVIS,, 265 So. 3d 694 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

    . . . Davis cross-appeals the court's denial of his motion for attorney's fees under section 768.79, Florida . . . See § 768.79(6)(b), Fla. Stat. . . . Food Lion, Inc. , 670 So.2d 138, 140 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) ; see also § 768.79(6)(b), Fla. Stat. . . .

    M. BREGER, S. M. v. ROBSHAW CUSTOM HOMES, INC., 264 So. 3d 1147 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

    . . . offer of judgment to ROBSHAW pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.442 and Florida Statutes § 768.79 . . .

    BURNEO, v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 273 So. 3d 154 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

    . . . conditioned upon the trial court's determination that United Auto satisfied the requirements of section 768.79 . . . Horowitch, 107 So.3d 362, 377 (Fla. 2013) (requiring strict compliance with section 768.79 and rule 1.442 . . .

    CASSEDY, Jr. v. WOOD,, 263 So. 3d 300 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

    . . . attorney's fees pursuant to the terms of a lease agreement, but denying additional fees under section 768.79 . . . The terms of the proposals for settlement to each Lessee were identical and read: Pursuant to Section 768.79 . . . Analysis A lower court's ruling on a motion for attorney's fees and costs pursuant to section 768.79 . . . Section 768.79 imposes a penalty. Id. ; see also Schussel v. . . . In Tierra Holdings , the trial court awarded attorney's fees to one party pursuant to section 768.79 . . .

    WHEATON, v. WHEATON,, 261 So. 3d 1236 (Fla. 2019)

    . . . (d) State the total amount. § 768.79(2), Fla. Stat. (2018). . . . ." § 768.79(3), Fla. Stat. (2018). . . . Id. at 994 (citing § 768.79(1), Fla. Stat. (2014) ). . . . From the plain language of section 768.79 and rule 1.442, neither require service by email. . . . See § 768.79(2)(a)-(d). . . .

    HAYES ROBERTSON GROUP, INC. v. CHERRY,, 260 So. 3d 1126 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

    . . . After trial and the defense jury verdict, Hayes Robertson moved for attorney's fees pursuant to section 768.79 . . .

    STARBOARD CRUISE SERVICES, INC. v. DEPRINCE,, 259 So. 3d 295 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

    . . . for attorney's fees, which was based on Starboard's proposal for settlement filed pursuant to section 768.79 . . . Section 768.79 and Rule 1.442 Must Be Strictly Construed Section 768.79 creates a substantive right to . . . Rule 1.442 provides the procedural mechanism for application of section 768.79. Saenz v. . . . Section 768.79 provides that offers of judgment apply only to "any civil action for damages." . . . As the prevailing party, Diamond Aircraft moved for attorney's fees under section 768.79. . . .

    SOUTHERN SPECIALTIES, INC. a v. FARMHOUSE TOMATOES, INC. a, 259 So. 3d 869 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

    . . . was a general offer to settle both equitable and damage claims, which is not permitted under section 768.79 . . . With respect to the order granting attorney's fees under section 768.79, Florida Statutes, we reverse . . . Horowitch , 107 So.3d 362, 374 (Fla. 2013), the supreme court held "that section 768.79 does not apply . . . The trial court denied the motion, concluding that section 768.79 did not apply because the plaintiff . . . In answering the certified question, the supreme court noted that section 768.79 and Florida Rule of . . .

    W. ALLEN, v. NUNEZ,, 258 So. 3d 1207 (Fla. 2018)

    . . . As the majority explains, proposals for settlement are governed by section 768.79, Florida Statutes ( . . . Under section 768.79, if a plaintiff serves a proposal for settlement, which the defendant does not accept . . . greater" than the proposal, the plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable costs and attorney's fees. § 768.79 . . . Likewise, in Campbell , I "reluctantly agree[d]" with the majority's conclusion that section 768.79 and . . . appellate decisions of courts of this State regarding proposals for settlement, pursuant to section 768.79 . . . This Proposal for Settlement is made pursuant to Florida Statute § 768.79, and is extended in accordance . . . ANALYSIS Attorney's fees under offers of judgment are governed by section 768.79, Florida Statutes, and . . . In relevant part, section 768.79 reads: (1) In any civil action for damages filed in the courts of this . . . This Court reviews a party's entitlement to attorney's fees pursuant to section 768.79 and rule 1.442 . . . must meet a requirement stated in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442 that is not listed in section 768.79 . . .

    ATLANTIC CIVIL, INC. v. O. SWIFT, III,, 271 So. 3d 21 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

    . . . Proposal for Settlement (the "Proposal") served pursuant to the offer of judgment statute, section 768.79 . . . On February 4, 2010, Atlantic Civil served the Proposal on Swift and Key Haven pursuant to section 768.79 . . . ("ACI"), by and through undersigned counsel and pursuant to Section 768.79, Florida Statutes and Rule . . . STANDARD OF REVIEW "The eligibility to receive attorney's fees and costs pursuant to section 768.79 and . . . , and rule 1.442, which implements section 768.79. . . .

    A. RUIZ, v. POLICLINICA METROPOLITANA, C. A., 260 So. 3d 1081 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

    . . . determination of entitlement to attorney's fees against the Appellee/plaintiff below pursuant to section 768.79 . . . Section 768.79 and Rule 1.442 Section 768.79 governs offers of judgment and demands for judgment, and . . . When an offer of judgment is made and the requisites of both section 768.79 and rule 1.442 have been . . . TGI Friday's, Inc., 639 So.2d 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), which held that section 768.79 provides for the . . . term 'judgment obtained' means the amount of the net judgment entered ...." § 768.79(6). . . .

    ZENDEJAS, v. H. REDMAN, J., 334 F. Supp. 3d 1249 (S.D. Fla. 2018)

    . . . Fee/Cost Entitlement Defendants seek to recover their attorney's fees pursuant to section 768.79 of the . . . Nevertheless, courts have granted motions for reasonable fees under section 768.79 in cases where substantial . . . Ryan , 841 So.2d at 522-23 (reversing trial court's refusal to award attorney's fees under section 768.79 . . . a Florida appellate court reversed the trial court's refusal to award attorney's fees under section 768.79 . . . foundation for their offers of judgment and therefore their Motions for Fee Entitlement under section 768.79 . . .

    E. ODOM, v. R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY,, 254 So. 3d 268 (Fla. 2018)

    . . . the judgment in this case far exceeds the proposal for settlement filed by Odom, pursuant to section 768.79 . . . court would normally determine entitlement to fees based on a proposal for settlement on remand, see § 768.79 . . .

    WASTE MANAGEMENT INC. OF FLORIDA, s s v. PINEDA, s s, 255 So. 3d 846 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

    . . . remanded to the trial court for a determination that the respondent is entitled to fees under Section 768.79 . . .

    CENTURY CENTENNIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, v. WALKER,, 254 So. 3d 978 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

    . . . Prior to trial, Walker served two separate proposals for settlement on Insurer pursuant to section 768.79 . . . Thereafter, Walker filed an amended motion seeking attorney's fees and costs pursuant to section 768.79 . . . According to section 768.79 : (1) .... . . . Section 768.79(6)(b) defines "judgment obtained" as used under subsection (6)(b) as "the amount of the . . . net judgment entered, plus any postoffer settlement amounts by which the verdict was reduced." § 768.79 . . .

    R. VALLE, v. S. FLORY,, 253 So. 3d 742 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

    . . . of his motion for attorney's fees pursuant to a proposal for settlement that he served under section 768.79 . . . through discovery, Flory served a proposal for settlement on Valle pursuant to the provisions of section 768.79 . . .

    FOURNIER, v. CALVO,, 252 So. 3d 269 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

    . . . Section 768.79 provides the proper mechanisms for establishing notice of intent to seek attorney's fees . . . in the event an offer of judgment is rejected. § 768.79, Fla. . . . As to the timeliness argument, both section 768.79(6) and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525 provide . . . fee judgment against Fournier was entered pursuant to Florida's offer of judgment statute, section 768.79 . . . with the guidelines promulgated by the Supreme Court, incurred from the date the offer was served. § 768.79 . . .

    RENNY, v. BERTOLOTI,, 252 So. 3d 761 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

    . . . standard of review in determining whether an offer of settlement comports with rule 1.442 and section 768.79 . . . preliminary matter, we conclude that Bertoloti's proposal and appellant's acceptance complied with section 768.79 . . . tantamount to a consent judgment that the trial court had continuing jurisdiction to enforce under section 768.79 . . .

    GOERSCH v. CITY OF SATELLITE BEACH,, 252 So. 3d 309 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

    . . . settlement unless the proposals are attached to motions for acceptance or enforcement under section 768.79 . . . defense, contention, allegation, or denial is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected" and section 768.79 . . .

    AZALEA TRACE, INC. v. MATOS, 249 So. 3d 699 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

    . . . First, they sought fees under section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2013), Florida's offer-of-judgment statute . . . Dvorak , 663 So.2d 606, 612 (Fla. 1995) (holding that under section 768.79, a trial court can deny an . . . appeal explained that the children moved for appellate attorney's fees "pursuant to either section 768.79 . . .

    TRAVELERS HOME AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. J. GALLO R., 246 So. 3d 560 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

    . . . Travelers also contests the separate final judgments awarding Gallo attorney's fees under section 768.79 . . .

    KOPPEL, v. OCHOA,, 243 So. 3d 886 (Fla. 2018)

    . . . Koppel with a proposal for settlement pursuant to section 768.79 and rule 1.442. . . . settlement and purported acceptance comport with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442 and section 768.79 . . . Relevant Provisions Section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2013), governs offers of judgment, and "provides . . . enlarge pursuant to rule 1.090 does not toll the time to accept an offer of settlement made under section 768.79 . . .

    PACHECO, v. R. GONZALEZ,, 254 So. 3d 527 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

    . . . Gonzalez ("Gonzalez"), based upon a Proposal for Settlement (the "Proposal") served pursuant to section 768.79 . . . (collectively, 'PACHECO DEFENDANTS')" pursuant to rule 1.442 and section 768.79, Florida Statutes. . . . invalid and unenforceable under rule 1.442 and that Gonzalez was not entitled to fees under section 768.79 . . . ANALYSIS " Section 768.79, Florida Statutes, governs offers of judgment, and rule 1.442 delineates the . . . 973 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) ), the opposite has occurred, and proposals for settlement made under section 768.79 . . .

    PELTZ, v. TRUST HOSPITALITY INTERNATIONAL, LLC,, 242 So. 3d 518 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

    . . . Pursuant to rule 1.442 and section 768.79 of the Florida Statutes, appellees served on Peltz a single . . . that all joint proposals state the amount and terms attributable to each offeror-implements section 768.79 . . . Because the fee-shifting provisions of section 768.79 and rule 1.442 are in derogation of the common . . . Hilyer Sod, Inc., 849 So.2d 276, 279 (Fla. 2003) (holding that in order for a section 768.79 settlement . . . In determining whether a proposal for settlement comports with rule 1.442 and section 768.79, we employ . . .

    HAAS AUTOMATION, INC. v. Dr. FOX,, 243 So. 3d 1017 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

    . . . Section 768.79(3) of the Florida Statutes (2016) provides that "[t]he offer shall be served upon the . . . P. 1.442(d) ; § 768.79(3), Fla. Stat. (2016) ; see Frosti v. . . . Section 768.79 of the Florida Statutes provides the substantive basis for attorney fee entitlement, and . . . rule 1.442 provides the procedural framework to implement section 768.79's substantive requirements. . . . ] and the party to whom [the offer] is being made." § 768.79(2)(b), Fla. . . .

    BRIGHT HOUSE NETWORKS, LLC, a v. B. CASSIDY L. E. H., 242 So. 3d 456 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

    . . . Cassidy, pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2011), and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442 . . . Appellate review of a party's entitlement to attorney's fees under section 768.79 and rule 1.442 is de . . . The version of section 768.79 that applies is the one in effect at the time the cause of action accrues . . .

    WEDMORE, v. O CONNOR O, 238 So. 3d 930 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

    . . . Kevin and Fran O'Connor attorney's fees and costs pursuant to an offer of judgment made under section 768.79 . . .

    CASTILLO, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP., 240 So. 3d 88 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

    . . . In that case, the Court carefully examined the relationship between section 768.79, Florida Statutes, . . . No such requirement is found in section 768.79. . . . Castillo's offer were sufficient under section 768.79. . . . ." § 768.79(2), Fla. Stat. (2016). . . . Castillo's motion for attorney's fees pursuant to section 768.79 is reversed and remanded with directions . . .

    SANCHEZ LLC, a v. CINQUE, 238 So. 3d 817 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

    . . . verdict, the plaintiff moved for fees and costs pursuant to a proposal for settlement under section 768.79 . . .

    A. CATALO v. LLANO FINANCING GROUP, LLC,, 238 So. 3d 885 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

    . . . conditioned on the trial court determining that [appellants/defendants] are entitled to fees under section 768.79 . . . Additionally, section 768.79, Florida Statutes, requires the party seeking fees pursuant to an offer . . . See § 768.79(6), Fla. . . .

    MOUNT VERNON FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. NEW MOON MANAGEMENT, INC. a k a, 239 So. 3d 183 (Fla. App. Ct. 2018)

    . . . entitlement to attorney's fees and costs ("amended motion for entitlement") filed pursuant to section 768.79 . . . Vernon served a nominal proposal for settlement ($1,000) on New Moon pursuant to rule 1.442 and section 768.79 . . . Pursuant to rule 1.442 and section 768.79, Mount Vernon filed its amended motion for entitlement based . . . See § 768.79(7)(a), Fla. . . . 3d DCA 1999) (reversing the trial court's denial of attorney's fees, which were sought under section 768.79 . . .

    MARKOVITS, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,, 235 So. 3d 1018 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018)

    . . . See § 768.79(1), Fla. Stat. (2014). . . . Rule 1.442, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, uses the term proposal for settlement while section 768.79 . . . Therefore, although section 768.79 would also provide„for an award of costs, the motion at issue here . . . a strict reading to rule 1.442 and thereby' defeat the substantive right to fees created by section 768.79 . . .

    OLDCASTLE SOUTHERN GROUP, INC. a v. RAILWORKS TRACK SYSTEMS, INC. a, 235 So. 3d 993 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

    . . . See § 768.79(1), Fla. Stat. (2014). . . . Section 768.79(3), Florida Statutes (2014), requires service of the proposal, without specifying the . . . Although—consistent with section 768.79(3)—rule R442(d), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, requires “ . . . not “filed in any court proceeding” due to application of general law and rules, specifically section 768.79 . . . Rule 1.442, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, uses the term proposal for settlement while section 768.79 . . .

    TOWER HILL SIGNATURE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. JAVELLANA, 238 So. 3d 372 (Fla. App. Ct. 2017)

    . . . , appeals the denial of its motion for attorney's fees under the offer of judgment statute, section 768.79 . . . Tower Hill's motion for attorney's fees, because this was a "civil action for damages" under section 768.79 . . . was pending, Tower Hill served an offer of judgment on each of the plaintiffs, pursuant to section 768.79 . . . We begin with the well-settled proposition that a party is not entitled to fees under section 768.79 . . . Further, the Florida Supreme Court has made it clear that " section 768.79 does not apply to cases that . . .

    UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, v. PARTNERS IN HEALTH CHIROPRACTIC CENTER, a a o, 233 So. 3d 1201 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

    . . . court’s order denying United Auto’s motion for entitlement to attorney’s fees filed pursuant to section 768.79 . . . a motion seeking an order finding that, it was entitled to its attorney’s fees pursuant to section 768.79 . . .

    PHILIP MORRIS USA INC. R. J. v. MARCHESE,, 231 So. 3d 473 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

    . . . appellee for $1.5 million and a determination of appellee’s entitlement to attorneys’ fees under section 768.79 . . .

    OBREGON, v. ROSANA CORP. d b a s, 232 So. 3d 1100 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

    . . . The motion for attorney’s fees was filed pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes, and Florida Rule . . . Section 768.79 provides that a party has the right to recover reasonable attorney’s fees if all dictates . . .

    MCCOY, v. R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, a USA, a a LLC, f k a f k a f k a a, 229 So. 3d 827 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

    . . . order denying a motion for attorney’s fees based upon a'2014 proposal for settlement under section 768.79 . . . After a trial, the plaintiff obtained a verdict that entitled him to attorney’s fees under section 768.79 . . . notice of an offer of settlement, and the offering party has satisfied the requirements of section 768.79 . . . filed unless it is accepted or unless filing is necessary to enforce the provisions of this section.” § 768.79 . . . initially served, an offer of judgment is not a document “filed in any court proceeding”; both section 768.79 . . .

    JOYCE, v. FEDERATED NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY,, 228 So. 3d 1122 (Fla. 2017)

    . . . 2003), that the use of a multiplier is not appropriate in determining attorney’s fees under section 768.79 . . . Sarkis held that the fees authorized by section 768.79 are sanctions that attach to the rejection of . . . Thus, Sarkis clearly distinguished section 768.79, Florida Statutes, while reaffirming the reasons for . . . to be viewed prospectively as a sanction against insurers in the same way that Sarkis viewed section 768.79 . . .

    GOLISTING. COM, INC. d b a a v. PAPERA,, 229 So. 3d 862 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

    . . . Florida’s offer of judgment statute, section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2013), and the rule implementing . . . Therefore, they are liable for attorney’s fees under section 768.79 and rule 1.442. . . .

    HEARTLAND EXPRESS, INC. OF IOWA, v. FARBER,, 230 So. 3d 146 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

    . . . denying his motion for attorney’s fees filed pursuant to Florida’s offer of judgment statute, section 768.79 . . . Auto-Owners Insurance Company, 82 So.3d 73 (Fla. 2012), in which the supreme court held that section 768.79 . . . the filing of the demand. ■ In ruling that Cross-Appellant Was not entitled to fee's under section 768.79 . . . case, the Florida Supreme Court answered in the negative the certified question of whether “section 768.79 . . . award of attorney’s fees under Florida’s offer of judgment statute is a substantive right, section 768.79 . . .

    DIAZ, v. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION,, 227 So. 3d 735 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

    . . . Diaz, awarding costs and attorney’s fees pursuant to section 768.79 of the Florida Statutes and rule . . .

    THE ZODIAC GROUP, INC. v. GRAYROBINSON, P. A., 224 So. 3d 333 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

    . . . served by GrayRobinson on the defendants pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442 and section 768.79 . . . The offers are not unclear, each complies with Rule 1.442 and section 768.79, and the appellants made . . .

    GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, v. M. MACEDO,, 228 So. 3d 1111 (Fla. 2017)

    . . . favor of coverage for the costs and attorneys’ fees awarded against the insured pursuant to section 768.79 . . . Stat., and sought taxable fees and costs pursuant to section 768.79, which the trial court awarded against . . .

    SHERMAN, v. SAVASTANO,, 220 So. 3d 441 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

    . . . Section 768.79 of the Florida Statutes creates a substantive right to attorney’s fees where a plaintiff . . . liability or the judgment obtained by the plaintiff is at least 25 percent less than such offer.” § 768.79 . . . “The purpose of Section 768.79 is to lead litigants to settle by penalizing those who decline offers . . .

    BRADFIELD, v. MID- CONTINENT CASUALTY COMPANY, a, 692 F. App'x 978 (11th Cir. 2017)

    . . . . § 768.79 (2006); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442. . . . Stat. § 768.79. . . . Stat. § 768.79(1), if that offer complied with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442. . . .

    GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, v. ARREOLA, 231 So. 3d 508 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

    . . . See § 768.79, Fla. Stat. (2014). The Arreolas filed suit against Geico. . . .

    TAYLOR ENGINEERING, INC. J. P. E. v. DICKERSON FLORIDA, INC. a, 221 So. 3d 719 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

    . . . (collectively “Taylor”) filed a post-trial motion for attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to section 768.79 . . . faith, and for this reason the trial court should disallow an award of costs and attorneys’ fees. § 768.79 . . . In such case, the court may disallow an award of costs and attorney’s fees. § 768.79(1) & (7)(a), Fla . . . remand to determine whether Taylor’s offer of judgment was made in good faith, pursuant to section 768.79 . . .

    POLK COUNTY, v. HIGHLANDS- IN- THE- WOODS, L. L. C., 227 So. 3d 161 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

    . . . Polk County appeals the order denying its motion for attorney fees pursuant to section 768.79, Florida . . . section 67,041, Florida Statutes (2016), but denied its motion seeking attorney fees under section 768.79 . . . Horowitch, 107 So.3d 362, 374 (Fla. 2013) (“[Section 768.79 does not apply to an action in which a plaintiff . . . Highlands also argues that because it included a count for declaratory relief, section 768.79 does not . . . See DiPompeo, 916 So.2d at 18 (holding that section 768.79 applied to a declaratory judgment action when . . .

    AGUADO, v. MILLER,, 219 So. 3d 216 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

    . . . on its determination that the proposal was invalid because' it did not strictly, comply with section 768.79 . . . (emphasis added); see also § 768.79(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (“An offer [of settlement] must ... . . .

    DANUBIS GROUP, LLC, a v. LANDMARK AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, a, 685 F. App'x 792 (11th Cir. 2017)

    . . . Under § 768.79(6)(a), “[i]f a defendant serves an offer which is not accepted by the plaintiff, and if . . . Stat. § 768.79(6)(a). . . . to compel; and (3) for the time period from August 28, 2014 onward, pursuant to Florida Statutes § 768.79 . . . When apportioning the award, the district court properly recognized that if § 768.79 were the sole basis . . . Stat. § 768.79(6)(a) (“When such costs and attorney’s fees total more than the amount of the judgment . . .

    BOATRIGHT v. PHILIP MORRIS USA INC. LLC,, 218 So. 3d 962 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

    . . . See § 768.79(6)0»), Fla. Stat. (2013); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442(h). . . . Because section 768.79 and rule 1.442 depart from common law, they demand strict compliance and strict . . . The Text and Interplay of Section 768.79, Rule 1.442, and Rule 1.080 Section 768.79 does not provide . . . Therefore, the Boatrights strictly complied with section 768.79 and rule 1.442. . . . Compare § 57.105(4), with § 768.79(3), mid Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442(d). . . .

    COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, v. LLANIO- GONZALEZ, 213 So. 3d 944 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

    . . . proposal for settlement is the amount of the “judgment obtained,” as this term is defined in Section 768.79 . . . 391, 393-94 (Fla. 2016) (“The eligibility to receive attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to section 768.79 . . .

    K. CARRIERE, v. CHUNICK HOLDINGS, LLC A., 212 So. 3d 543 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

    . . . order, we will provisionally grant Ap-pellees’ motion for appellate attorney’s fees pursuant to section 768.79 . . .

    HANEY, v. SLOAN,, 211 So. 3d 372 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

    . . . Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., 136 So.3d 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); see also § 768.79(1), Fla. . . .

    WHEATON, v. WHEATON,, 217 So. 3d 125 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

    . . . It is true, of course, that both the proposal for settlement statute (section 768.79, Florida Statutes . . . Section 768.79(3), Fla. . . .

    P. DIECIDUE, v. LEWIS,, 223 So. 3d 1015 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

    . . . Casualty Insurance Company (Allstate) pursuant to a proposal for settlement (proposal) governed by section 768.79 . . . That said, because section 768.79 and rule 1.442 are in derogation of common law, they demand strict . . . As we have in the past, we again stress that the purpose of section 768.79 and rule 1.442 is to reduce . . . We are mindful that prevailing parties seeking recovery under section 768.79 have expressed concerns . . . Because a valid proposal for settlement must comply with both rule 1.442 and section 768.79, the trial . . . I continue to adhere to the belief that the purpose of rule 1.442 and section 768.79 is to end litigation . . . Importantly, the statute requires that the offer be in writing and that it set forth “its total amount.” § 768.79 . . .

    BALDWIN, v. M. IDONI,, 208 So. 3d 842 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

    . . . instructions to determine the amount of attorney’s fees to which Baldwin is entitled pursuant to section 768.79 . . .

    CHANG, a. k. a. v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N. A., 845 F.3d 1087 (11th Cir. 2017)

    . . . . § 768.79. . . .

    E. KIEFER, Jr. v. SUNSET BEACH INVESTMENTS, LLC, a a G., 207 So.3d 1008 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

    . . . .3d 1268, 1271 (Fla. 2015) (“The eligibility to receive attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to section 768.79 . . . Attorneys’ fees sought pursuant to proposals for settlement and offers of judgment are governed by section 768.79 . . .

    AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, v. D AGOSTINO,, 211 So. 3d 63 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

    . . . attorney’s fees and costs against the plaintiff pursuant to a proposal for settlement served under section 768.79 . . . .3d 1268, 1271 (Fla. 2016) (“The eligibility to receive attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to section 768.79 . . . excess of the amount contained in her offers of judgment to trigger the payment of fees under section 768.79 . . . trial court granted the plaintiffs motion to tax attorney’s fees and costs in accordance with section 768.79 . . . for the court, Justice Canady reasoned: [The plaintiff] is entitled to attorney’s fees under section 768.79 . . .

    BARTON v. CAPITOL PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., 208 So. 3d 239 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

    . . . Approximately six months later, Capitol served the Bartons with a proposed settlement, pursuant to section 768.79 . . .

    CASTIGLIONI, v. PINO,, 207 So.3d 337 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

    . . . P. 1.442(h)(1); § 768.79(7)(a), Fla. . . . P. 1.442(h)(2); § 768.79(7)(b), Fla. . . .

    SOUTH FLORIDA POOL AND SPA CORP. v. SHARPE INVESTMENT LAND TRUST NUMBER J,, 207 So.3d 301 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

    . . . , Pool and Spa served a proposal for settlement on Landlord in January of 2012, pursuant to section 768.79 . . .

    ANDERSON, v. HILTON HOTELS CORPORATION,, 202 So. 3d 846 (Fla. 2016)

    . . . This Proposal for Settlement is made pursuant to Florida Statute § 768.79, and is extended in accordance . . . Anderson then sought attorneys’ fees pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes, and Florida Rule of . . . This Court reviews a party’s entitlement to attorneys’ fees pursuant to section 768.79 and Rule 1.442 . . . (citing Lucas, 813 So.2d at 973); see also § 768.79(7), Fla. Stat. . . . See § 768.79(1), Fla. Stat. . . .

    CACCIAMANI, v. TARGET CORPORATION,, 662 F. App'x 759 (11th Cir. 2016)

    . . . Florida Statute § 768.79 To review the district court’s award of attorney’s fees, we first must outline . . . the relevant Florida statute and then the settlement offers. ■ Florida Statute § 768.79 provides that . . . Stat. § 768.79(1). . . . Stat. § 768.79(7)(a). . . . Cacciamani for the total amount of $44,000, pursuant to Florida Statute § 768.79 and Florida Rule of . . .

    L. KUHAJDA, v. BORDEN DAIRY COMPANY OF ALABAMA, LLC., 202 So. 3d 391 (Fla. 2016)

    . . . Section 768.79 and Rule 1.442 “The Legislature has modified the American rule, in which each party pays . . . its own attorney’s fees, and has created a substantive right to attorney’s fees in section 768.79 on . . . Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442 implements section 768.79. See Willis Shaw Exp., Inc. v. . . . In 1996, we amended rule 1.442 to require greater detail in an offer of settlement under section 768.79 . . . This Court has held that section 768.79 and rule 1.442 must be strictly construed because they are in . . .

    DAVENPORT, v. THOR MOTOR COACH, INC. a, 661 F. App'x 997 (11th Cir. 2016)

    . . . Stat. § 768.79 and Fla. Stat. § 320.838. . . . Stat. § 768.79 is proper. . . . Stat. § 768.79. . . . Stat § 768.79 liability. . . . Stat. § 768.79. . . .

    PRIMO, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a, 661 F. App'x 661 (11th Cir. 2016)

    . . . . § 768.79. After reviewing the briefs and the record, we affirm. I. . . . Stat. § 768.79(1). . . . Stat. § 768.79 and Rule 1.442. . . . Stat. § 768.79(2). . . . Stat. § 768.79 and Rule 1.442. B. . . .

    FAITH FREIGHT FORWARDING CORPORATION, v. ANIAS,, 206 So.3d 753 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

    . . . Finally, we reverse the order which held the Employee’s offer of judgment pursuant to section 768.79, . . . Section 768.79(1) applies “[i]n any civil action for damages filed in the courts of this state...." . . . In construing the term “action for damages,” the Florida Supreme Court held that section 768.79 is inapplicable . . . resolved on remand, it “recovers a judgment in an amount at least 25 percent greater than the offer.” § 768.79 . . .

    BERMAN, v. A. KAFKA,, 661 F. App'x 621 (11th Cir. 2016)

    . . . . § 768.79. Briefly stated, Plaintiff contends that Fla. . . . . § 768.79 is inapplicable to her case because Plaintiff sought both monetary and non-monetary relief . . . On appeal, Plaintiff addresses only the merits of her argument about the applicability of section 768.79 . . .

    J. SATERBO C. v. D. MARKUSON,, 210 So. 3d 135 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

    . . . of a trial court’s determination of eligibility to receive an award of attorneys’ fees under section 768.79 . . . Both section 768.79 and rule 1.442 must be strictly construed because they are “in derogation of the . . . determining that Markuson was not entitled to an award of appellate attorneys’ fees pursuant to section 768.79 . . . Pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2011), where a plaintiff serves an offer of settlement . . .

    PALMER, n k a v. PALMER,, 206 So.3d 74 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

    . . . Neither section 45.061(4), Florida Statutes, the statute entitled "Offers of Settlement,” nor section 768.79 . . .

    NUNEZ v. W. RILEY ALLEN,, 194 So. 3d 554 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

    . . . Riley Allen (“Appellee”) $343,590 in attorney’s fees and legal assistant’s fees pursuant to section 768.79 . . . This Proposal for Settlement is made pursuant' to Florida' Statute § 768.79, and is extended in accordance . . . Anderson, 153 So.3d 412 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014): An award, of. attorney’s fees under section 768.79 is a . . . Strict construction of section 768.79 is also required because the statute is in derogation of the common . . . "Section 768.79 provides the substantive law concerning offers and demands of judgments, whilé Florida . . .

    FLORIDA PENINSULA INSURANCE COMPANY, v. BRUNNER,, 193 So. 3d 1026 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

    . . . homeowner’s policy in favor of Ann Brunner, under Florida Rule of' Civil Procedure 1.442 and section 768.79 . . . (Fla.2013), the Supreme Court of Florida reiterated that the requirements of Rule 1.442 and section 768.79 . . .

    OCHOA, v. KOPPEL a, 197 So. 3d 77 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

    . . . Ochoa served pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2013), and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure . . . Koppel with a proposal for settlement pursuant to section 768.79 and rule 1.442. . . . thirty-day period after which a settle- . ment proposal is deemed rejected is also statutory under section 768.79 . . . 1038 n. 3 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) ("Because the time for responding to an offer of judgment under section 768.79 . . .

    MANUEL DIAZ FARMS, INC. v. J. DELGADO,, 193 So. 3d 71 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

    . . . Delgado with a written proposal for settlement pursuant to Rule 1.442 and section 768.79, Florida Statutes . . . Analysis Our review of the proposal for settlement and its compliance with Rule 1.442 and section 768.79 . . . The court rejected this argument, since section 768.79, Florida Statutes, and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure . . . We find no basis in precedent, Rule 1.442, or section 768.79, to support Mr. . . . legislature created a property right to" an award of attorney’s fees where a party complies with section 768.79 . . .

    GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, v. M. MACEDO R., 190 So. 3d 1155 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

    . . . Macedo pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes.' . . . Stat., and sought taxable fees and costs pursuant to section 768.79, which the trial court awarded against . . .

    MAINES v. FOX,, 190 So. 3d 1135 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

    . . . Appel-lee moved for an award of. attorney’s fees pursuant to section .768.79, Florida Statutes (2013) . . . Section 768.79 and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442 govern trie form and ' content of proposals . . . Strict adherence to section 768.79 and rule 1.442 is required of proposals for settlement. . . . Both section 768.79 and rule 1.442 require that certain elements of-proposals for settlement be stated . . .

    DEER VALLEY REALTY, INC. v. SB HOTEL ASSOCIATES LLC, a, 190 So. 3d 203 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

    . . . The defendants moved for attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes; rule . . . appeal, the plaintiff argues the proposals for settlement do -not comply with rule 1.442 and section 768.79 . . . We have de novo review of orders awarding “attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to section 768.79 and rule . . . Section 768.79 and rule 1.442 control attorney’s fees awards based on a proposal for settlement. . . . “Both section 768.79 and rule 1.442 are in derogation of the common law ... which requires that we strictly . . .

    VANGUARD CAR RENTAL USA, LLC, a f k a USA, a d b a v. SUTTLES, Jr., 190 So. 3d 672 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

    . . . denying its motion for attorney’s fees and costs made pursuant to a proposal for settlement under section 768.79 . . . See § 768.79, Fla. Stat. (2014) ; Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442. . . . In-Schmidt, the district court explained the application of section 768.79 as follows: To begin, the . . . Subsection. (6)(b) of section 768.79 (in pertinent part) provides as follows: “(6) Upon motion made by . . . Thus, under section 768.79, only Vanguard Inc. could serve a proposal for settlement. § 768.79(1), Fla . . .

    MYD MARINE DISTRIBUTOR, INC. a MYD a MYD a v. INTERNATIONAL PAINT LTD. LLC, N, 187 So. 3d 1285 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

    . . . Section 768.79 of the Florida Statutes creates a substantive right to attorney’s fees when, among other . . . “The purpose of Section 768.79 is to lead litigants to settle by penalizing those who decline offers . . . By its own terms, section 768.79 applies only to “civil action[s] for damages.” . . . See § 768.79(1), Fla. Stat. (2011). . . . Id. at 374 (“Florida courts have not decided whether a party may utilize section 768.79 when.he or she . . .

    PATON, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE CO., 190 So. 3d 1047 (Fla. 2016)

    . . . (citing § 768.79(6)(b), Fla. Stat. (2012)). . . .

    FRIDMAN, v. SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS,, 185 So. 3d 1214 (Fla. 2016)

    . . . filed a notice of a settlement proposal pursuant to Florida Rulé of Civil Procedure 1.442 and section 768.79 . . . See § 768.79, Fla. Stat.; Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442(f). . . .

    COLVIN v. CLEMENTS AND ASHMORE, P. A. d b a s, 182 So. 3d 924 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

    . . . The Florida Supreme Court has uniformly required strict compliance with section 768.79 of the Florida . . . First, section - 768.79 is a .fee-shifting statute in derogation of the common law, and as such it must . . . Goldman, 959 S.o.2d 223, 226-27 (Fla.2007) (requiring strict compliance with section 768.79(2)(a) and . . . awarded in a final judgment, in order to ensure that the litigation is terminated by the , settlement. § 768.79 . . . The plaintiff then moved, on this ground, to recover her attorney’s fees under section 768.79, Florida . . . bright-line rule should not be applied here where the proposal complied with all of the provisions of section 768.79 . . . , 171 So.3d 242, 243 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015), which reaffirmed the’ holding that rule 1.442 and section 768.79 . . .

    MOOTRY, As v. BETHUNE- COOKMAN UNIVERSITY, INC., 186 So. 3d 15 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

    . . . cross-appeal the trial court’s or der denying their motion for attorneys fees filed pursuant to section. 768.79 . . . tendered a $100 proposal for settlement pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442 and section 768.79 . . . part of BCU or Reed, they timely filed a motion for attorney fees pursuant to rule 1.442 and section 768.79 . . . Id. § 768.79(7)(a). ' For an offer tó be made in good faith, the offer must “have some reasonable foundation . . . Florida Rule of Civil Procedure T.442 is titled “Proposal for Settlements” and implements section 768.79 . . .

    PRATT, Jr. v. C. WEISS, D. O. C. D. O. P. A. H. D. O. H. D. O. P. A. C. D. O. P. A. FMC a d b a FMC f k a FMC d b a, 178 So. 3d 946 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

    . . . order, in which the trial court found an offer of judgment complied with the requirements of section 768.79 . . . The supreme court has now quashed our decision and held that the offer failed to comply with section 768.79 . . .

    R. BATCHELOR, v. GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY,, 142 F. Supp. 3d 1220 (M.D. Fla. 2015)

    . . . Stat., § 768.79; see also Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442. . . . Stat. § 768.79(2). . . . See id. § 768.79(1). . . . .

    CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORP. v. BASCUAS,, 178 So. 3d 902 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

    . . . Citizens sought fees under the offer of judgment statute (section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2012)) and . . .

    HSI CHANG v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N. A., 138 F. Supp. 3d 1352 (S.D. Fla. 2015)

    . . . In support,- Chang urgés the 'Court to construe the thirty-day time period of Section 768.79 of the Florida . . . , in which casé this Court' would have to determine the timeliness of Chase’s motions under Section 768.79 . . . The Supreme Court of Florida has interpreted the thirty-day time period of Section 768.79 as procedural . . . Pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes, Southern District of Florida Local Rule 7.3, and 28 U.S.C . . . Chase is entitled to attorneys’ fees pursuant to Florida Statutes section 768.79. . . .

    E. WALLEN, v. TYSON,, 174 So. 3d 1058 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

    . . . rendering Tyson liable for Wallen’s attorney’s fees and costs under the terms of the Proposal and section 768.79 . . . The requirements for a valid proposal for settlement are set forth in section 768.79, Florida Statutes . . .