Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 768.79 (2025)

Offer of judgment and demand for judgment.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

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.

(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(5) An offer may be withdrawn in writing which is served before the date a written acceptance is filed.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.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 920 cases (124 in the last 5 years), 1988–2026 · leading case: Diamond Aircraft Indus., Inc. v. Horowitch, 107 So. 3d 362 (Fla. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Diamond Aircraft Indus., Inc. v. Horowitch, 107 So. 3d 362 (Fla. 2013). · cites it 80× “Failure to accept this offer within thirty (30) days shall be deemed a *366 rejection of this offer under Fla. Stat. § 768.79 (1). 4. This offer shall be accepted by filing a written acceptance with the Court within 30 days after service.”

Sarkis v. Allstate Ins. Co., 863 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 2003). · cites it 75× “The case proceeded to trial, and Sarkis was ultimately awarded a net judgment of ,700, which was twenty-five percent greater than her offer of judgment.”

TGI Friday's, Inc. v. Dvorak, 663 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1995). · cites it 58× “" § 768.79, Fla. Stat. (1991). I conclude that the guidelines to which the statute refers are those set forth in rule 4-1.”

Se. Floating Docks, Inc. v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 82 So. 3d 73 (Fla. 2012). · cites it 51× “79 until 1986, see § 768.79, Fla. Stat. (Supp.1986), the origins of Florida’s offer of judgment statute date back to 1972, when this Court initially adopted a variation of section 768.”

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 932 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 2006). · cites it 33× “At trial, the jury found that Nichols unreasonably refused to submit to a medical examination, which meant she was not entitled to any recovery.”

Nichols v. State Farm Mut., 851 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). · cites it 50× “Fees were awarded under the offer of judgment statute, section 768.79, Florida Statutes (1999). Insured contends that the statute does not apply to "PIP" claims.”

Troy Anderson v. Hilton Hotels Corp., etc., 202 So. 3d 846 (Fla. 2016). · cites it 29× “§ 768.79, Fla. Stat. (2011). The relevant portions of the current version of Rule 1.”

Susanne L. Kuhajda v. Borden Dairy Co. of Alabama, LLC., 202 So. 3d 391 (Fla. 2016). · cites it 19× “Following entry of judgment in her favor, the trial court granted Kuhaj-da’s motion to tax attorney’s fees and costs in accordance with section 768.79 and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.”

Campbell v. Goldman, 959 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 2007). · cites it 27× “442 but did not cite the applicable statute, section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2003). On May 27, 2004, the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff in the amount of ,900, and the trial court entered a final judgment for that amount.”

White v. Steak & Ale of Florida, Inc., 816 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2002). · cites it 31× “79, Florida Statutes (1993), pre-offer taxable costs are included in calculating the "judgment obtained" for the purpose of determining whether the party making the offer is entitled to attorneys' fees under section 768.79. We have jurisdiction.”

BDO Seidman v. British Car Auctions, Inc., 802 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). · cites it 39× “Prior to trial, each party made an offer of judgment pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes (1991), but neither offer was accepted.”

Ancel Pratt, Jr. v. Michael C. Weiss, D.O., 161 So. 3d 1268 (Fla. 2015). · cites it 27× “d/b/a FLORIDA MEDICAL CENTER, by and through their undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Florida Statute § 768.79 and Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442 state as follows: The Party making this proposal are Defendants, FMC HOSPITAL LTD.”

Show all 920 citing cases →

— 768.79(1) — 154 cases

Diamond Aircraft Indus., Inc. v. Horowitch, 107 So. 3d 362 (Fla. 2013). “Failure to accept this offer within thirty (30) days shall be deemed a *366 rejection of this offer under Fla. Stat. § 768.79 (1). 4. This offer shall be accepted by filing a written acceptance with the Court within 30 days after service.”

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 932 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 2006). “At trial, the jury found that Nichols unreasonably refused to submit to a medical examination, which meant she was not entitled to any recovery.”

Se. Floating Docks, Inc. v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 82 So. 3d 73 (Fla. 2012). “79 until 1986, see § 768.79, Fla. Stat. (Supp.1986), the origins of Florida’s offer of judgment statute date back to 1972, when this Court initially adopted a variation of section 768.”

Susanne L. Kuhajda v. Borden Dairy Co. of Alabama, LLC., 202 So. 3d 391 (Fla. 2016). “Following entry of judgment in her favor, the trial court granted Kuhaj-da’s motion to tax attorney’s fees and costs in accordance with section 768.79 and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.”

MYD Marine Distrib., Inc. v. Int'l Paint Ltd., 187 So. 3d 1285 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).

— 768.79(1)(a) — 21 cases

Kline v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 568 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).

Rabatie v. US SEC. Ins. Co., 581 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).

Bessey v. DiFilippo, 951 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).

Massey v. David, 979 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 2008).

Mem'l Sales, Inc. v. Pike, 579 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).

— 768.79(2) — 43 cases

MGR EQUIP. v. Wilson Ice Enter., 731 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 1999).

Willis Shaw Express, Inc. v. Hilyer Sod, Inc., 849 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 2003).

Dudley v. McCormick, 799 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).

Sandra Kent Wheaton v. Mardella Wheaton, 261 So. 3d 1236 (Fla. 2019).

In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 131 So. 3d 643 (Fla. 2013).

— 768.79(2)(a) — 16 cases

Campbell v. Goldman, 959 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 2007). “442 but did not cite the applicable statute, section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2003). On May 27, 2004, the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff in the amount of ,900, and the trial court entered a final judgment for that amount.”

Cent. Motor Co. v. Shaw, 3 So. 3d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).

Mcmullen Oil v. Iss Intern. Serv., 698 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).

Sandra Kent Wheaton v. Mardella Wheaton, 261 So. 3d 1236 (Fla. 2019).

Goldman v. Campbell, 920 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).

— 768.79(2)(b) — 16 cases

Haas Automation, Inc. v. Fox, 243 So. 3d 1017 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).

Land & Sea Petroleum, Inc. v. Bus. Specialists, Inc., 53 So. 3d 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).

Attorneys' Title Ins. Fund, Inc. v. Gorka, 36 So. 3d 646 (Fla. 2010).

Schmidt v. Fortner, 629 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).

Sarkis v. Allstate Ins. Co., 863 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 2003). “The case proceeded to trial, and Sarkis was ultimately awarded a net judgment of ,700, which was twenty-five percent greater than her offer of judgment.”

— 768.79(2)(b)(4) — 1 case

Goodpaster v. Evans, 570 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).

— 768.79(2)(c) — 5 cases

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco v. Ward, 141 So. 3d 236 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).

Michael Aguado v. Allen Miller, 219 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017).

Palmentere Bros. Cartage Serv., Inc. v. Heather Copeland & Phillip Copeland, her husband (Fla. 1st DCA 2019).

Virginia Hadad Gonzalez v. Millin a. Nobregas (Fla. 3d DCA 2023).

Stevens, Stevens v. Florida Peninsula Ins. Co. (Fla. 2d DCA 2025).

— 768.79(2)(d) — 8 cases

Diecidue v. Lewis, 223 So. 3d 1015 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017).

Allstate Indem. Co. v. Hingson, 808 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 2002).

Bodek v. Gulliver Academy, Inc., 702 So. 2d 1331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).

Wickboldt v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. (M.D. Fla. 2021).

Mendez v. Bankers Ins., 696 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).

— 768.79(3) — 16 cases

Boatright v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 218 So. 3d 962 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017).

Mills v. Martinez, 909 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

Sandra Kent Wheaton v. Mardella Wheaton, 261 So. 3d 1236 (Fla. 2019).

Haas Automation, Inc. v. Fox, 243 So. 3d 1017 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).

Frosti v. Creel, 979 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 2008).

— 768.79(4) — 20 cases

Mady v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 59 So. 3d 1129 (Fla. 2011).

Attorneys' Title Ins. Fund, Inc. v. Gorka, 36 So. 3d 646 (Fla. 2010).

Bush Leasing, Inc. v. Gallo, 634 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).

Kroener v. Florida Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 63 So. 3d 914 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).

Wright v. Caruana, 640 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).

— 768.79(5) — 6 cases

Kroener v. Florida Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 63 So. 3d 914 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).

Kaufman v. Smith, 693 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).

Scope v. Fannelli, 639 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).

Zackary Neeld v. Thomas Combs (Fla. 5th DCA 2025).

Javier v. Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc., 813 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).

— 768.79(6) — 50 cases

White v. Steak & Ale of Florida, Inc., 816 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2002). “79, Florida Statutes (1993), pre-offer taxable costs are included in calculating the "judgment obtained" for the purpose of determining whether the party making the offer is entitled to attorneys' fees under section 768.79. We have jurisdiction.”

Troy Anderson v. Hilton Hotels Corp., etc., 202 So. 3d 846 (Fla. 2016). “§ 768.79, Fla. Stat. (2011). The relevant portions of the current version of Rule 1.”

Norris v. Treadwell, 907 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).

Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinic, Inc. v. Mercury Ins. Co. of Florida, 97 So. 3d 204 (Fla. 2012).

— 768.79(6)(a) — 41 cases

Attorneys' Title Ins. Fund, Inc. v. Gorka, 36 So. 3d 646 (Fla. 2010).

Norris v. Treadwell, 907 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).

Oruga Corp. v. At&t Wireless of Florida, 712 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

— 768.79(6)(b) — 29 cases

Kelly Paton v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 190 So. 3d 1047 (Fla. 2016).

Troy Anderson v. Hilton Hotels Corp., etc., 202 So. 3d 846 (Fla. 2016). “§ 768.79, Fla. Stat. (2011). The relevant portions of the current version of Rule 1.”

Mx Investments Inc. v. Crawford, 700 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 1997).

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Lewis, 275 So. 3d 747 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019).

— 768.79(7) — 19 cases

Troy Anderson v. Hilton Hotels Corp., etc., 202 So. 3d 846 (Fla. 2016). “§ 768.79, Fla. Stat. (2011). The relevant portions of the current version of Rule 1.”

Fox v. McCaw Cellular Commc'ns, 745 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).

Vanguard Car Rental USA, LLC v. Suttles, 190 So. 3d 672 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016).

TGI Friday's, Inc. v. Dvorak, 663 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1995). “" § 768.79, Fla. Stat. (1991). I conclude that the guidelines to which the statute refers are those set forth in rule 4-1.”

— 768.79(7)(a) — 48 cases

Schmidt v. Fortner, 629 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).

Taylor Eng'g, Inc. & Robert J. Wagner, P.E. v. Dickerson Florida, Inc., a Florida Corp., 221 So. 3d 719 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017).

Peoples Gas Sys. v. Acme Gas Corp., 689 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).

Nichols v. State Farm Mut., 851 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). “Fees were awarded under the offer of judgment statute, section 768.79, Florida Statutes (1999). Insured contends that the statute does not apply to "PIP" claims.”

Land & Sea Petroleum, Inc. v. Bus. Specialists, Inc., 53 So. 3d 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).

— 768.79(7)(b) — 34 cases

Schmidt v. Fortner, 629 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).

Segundo v. Reid, 20 So. 3d 933 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).

Tiara Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Marsh USA, Inc., 697 F. Supp. 2d 1349 (S.D. Fla. 2010).

Kearney v. Auto-Owners Ins., 713 F. Supp. 2d 1369 (M.D. Fla. 2010).

— 768.79(7)(b)(3) — 1 case

Hannah v. Newkirk, 675 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 1996).

— 768.79(7)(b)(4) — 1 case

Wickboldt v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. (M.D. Fla. 2021).

— 768.79(7)(b)(5) — 1 case

Wickboldt v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. (M.D. Fla. 2021).

— 768.79(7)(b)(6) — 3 cases

Braaksma v. Pratt, 103 So. 3d 913 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).

McGregor v. Molnar, 79 So. 3d 908 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).

Wickboldt v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. (M.D. Fla. 2021).

— 768.79(7)(b)(l) — 1 case

— 768.79(8) — 1 case

Hamilton v. Ford Motor Co., 936 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).

— 768.79(8)(b) — 2 cases

Brinda Coates, etc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (Fla. 2023).

Grayson v. No Labels, Inc. (M.D. Fla. 2024).

— 768.79(B) — 1 case

Chastain v. Chastain, 119 So. 3d 547 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

— 768.79(a) — 1 case

Evans v. Piotraczk, 724 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).

— 768.79(b) — 2 cases

Respiratory Care v. Murray D. Shear, Pa, 715 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

Hsi Chang v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 138 F. Supp. 3d 1352 (S.D. Fla. 2015).

— 768.79(l) — 1 case

Attorneys' Title Ins. Fund, Inc. v. Gorka, 36 So. 3d 646 (Fla. 2010).

— 768.79(l)(a) — 4 cases

Tanker Mgmt. Inc. v. Brunson, 918 F.2d 1524 (11th Cir. 1990).

Goodpaster v. Evans, 570 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).

Hostetter-Jones v. Morris Newspaper Corp., 590 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).

Bicknell v. Strickland, 604 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).

— 768.79(l)(c) — 1 case

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco v. Ward, 141 So. 3d 236 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.