Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

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

The 2024 Florida Statutes

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:

Cases Citing Statute 768.79

Total Results: 20

United Cab of Broward, LLC and Ernsault Maurice v. Nathalia Muller

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-11-13

Snippet: proposal for settlement (“PFS”) pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2022), and Florida Rule of Civil

Creative Hardscapes, LLC v. Robert Prawdzik

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-11-08

Snippet: award of attorney’s fees and costs under section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2019). Generally, a trial

Melissa Beth Epps, and B.M., by and Through Melissa Beth Epps, as Parent and Natural Guardian v. Tricia Marie Maro Robin John Maro

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-11-01

Snippet: of a proposal for settlement pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2023), and Florida Rule of Civil

CITY OF SARASOTA, OFFICER JUAN JAIMES v. ESTATE OF JOHN KAAFI, SOUCY

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-08-14

Snippet: Act interacts with the requirements under section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2022), providing for an offer

BANC OF AMERICA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC, BANK OF AMERICA, N. A. v. BERKLEY INSURANCE COMPANY, THE TEMPO AT ENCORE, LP

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-05-17

Snippet: reversal of the fee award"). See generally § 768.79(7), Fla. Stat. (2022) (stating that it is only

BERKLEY INSURANCE COMPANY v. BANC OF AMERICA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC, TAMPA HOUSING AUTHORITY

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-05-17

Snippet: reversal of the fee award"). See generally § 768.79(7), Fla. Stat. (2022) (stating that it is only

Lemartec Corporation v. East Coast Metal Structures Corp.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-05-15

Snippet: 5 fees under section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2021), pursuant to a rejected

Nadja Mackensen and Wolfgang Mackensen v. Trace Elements Inc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-05-15

Snippet: their PFS satisfied the requirements of section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2022), and Florida Rule of Civil

USAA Casualty Insurance Company v. Health Diagnostics of Fort Lauderdale, LLC, etc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-04-17

Snippet: prejudice, or prevails pursuant to F.S. 57.105, 768.79 or 1.442, or other theory authorized under law

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. FINSON

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-04-17

Snippet: policy limits." 254 So. 3d at 979; see also § 768.79(6)(b), Fla. Stat. (2017) (conditioning an award

Webjet Linhas Aereas S.A., etc. v. ZGA Aircraft Leasing, Inc., etc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-03-20

Snippet: their June 2021 proposal for settlement. See § 768.79, Fla. Stat. (2021). We reverse the challenged order

JEFFREY WAYNE MORRIS v. RACHEL BOYER

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-03-08

Snippet: So. 3d 38, 43 (Fla. 2022) (“Nothing in section 768.79 or rule 1.442 is at odds with the[] basic rules

Angel L. Ortega v. All Dade Fences, Inc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-03-06

Snippet: motion. Palacios and All Dade moved for section 768.79 attorney’s fees based on their rejected proposals

ADVANTAGE LIMOUSINE, L L C v. KEITH M. SIMMONS, JR.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-03-06

Snippet: entitlement to attorney's fees pursuant to section 768.79[, Florida Statutes (2020),] and [Florida Rule of

Progressive Select Insurance Company v. Leslie Bunsee

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-03-06

Snippet: plaintiffs’ rejection of its offer of judgment. See § 768.79, Fla. Stat. Progressive submitted a motion asserting

ERIK SATERBO, STEPHEN SATERBO AND BENJAMIN D. MARKUSON v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-02-28

Snippet: straight-forward proposal for settlement under section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2012), requiring payment of

KOVAR LAW GROUP, PLLC v. JENNIFER JORDAN

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-02-23

Snippet: enforce the settlement agreement." See § 768.79(4). We therefore conclude that the settlement

SDG Dadeland Associates, Inc. v. Kenny Arias

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-01-17

Snippet: their motion for attorney’s fees under section 768.79 of the Florida Statutes. The trial court denied

SEJAL KUTHIALA, M.D. vs DAVID M. GOLDMAN AND BETH MAYERS GOLDMAN

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2023-09-15

Snippet: motion for attorney’s fees filed pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2022). We reverse. This

ERIK SATERBO, STEPHEN SATERBO AND BENJAMIN D. MARKUSON v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2023-09-15

Snippet: straight-forward proposal for settlement under section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2012), requiring payment of