Offer of Judgment Invalid Where Insurer Required to Tender in Excess of Policy

In GONZALEZ v. CLAYWELL, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D1784a (Fla. 1st DCA August 15, 2011), the plaintiff issued a proposal for settlement to the defendant. As background, the State of Florida Offer of Judgment Statute creates a right to recover reasonable costs and attorney’s fees incurred after a settlement offer is made when (1) a party has served a demand or offer for judgment, and (2) that party has recovered at trial a judgment at least twenty-five (25) percent more or less than the demand or offer. Dictiomatic, Inc. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, 127 F. Supp. 2d 1239, 1244 (Fla. 1999).

In the case at bar, the plaintiff suffered significant injuries in a vehicular collision and offered to settle her lawsuit for $240,000, if Gonzalez's insurance company, GEICO, tendered a check in the amount of $240,000 made payable to her. The offer was not accepted and, after a jury trial, the plaintiff was awarded a total judgment of $394,029.71, which was affirmed on appeal. Gonzalez v. Claywell, 24 So. 3d 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009).

However, the Court found the plaintiff's proposal for settlement invalid and unenforceable. This is because it was impossible for Gonzalez to meet the conditions of the proposal. Specifically, the proposal required that GEICO, a nonparty, tender a check well in excess of its policy limits of $25,000, even though there has been no determination that GEICO is liable to pay more than its policy limits. The Court reasoned that because the proposal contained a condition that Gonzalez could not possibly perform, and divested him of independent control of the decision to settle, it was invalid and unenforceable.

If you are interested in receiving a copy of this decision or wish to reach me, you may do so at miamipandi@comcast.net or motero@houckanderson.com.

Comments

ReThink + ReUse Center "It's How We Roll" Fun Raiser -- Bowling Night -- October 16, 2014

As many of my readers may be aware, I am the Chair of the ReThink + ReUse Center, a non-for-profit educational and environmental Center in Miami educating children into rethinking reuseable materials for learning through play. The ReThink and ReUse Center’s Quality Play is Learning Program provides a series of educational and participatory workshops based on the philosophies of Reggio Emilia and Harvard's Project Zero Visible Thinking. The Children’s Trust is the major funder of this program, but the Center is required to continually fundraise for the balance its annual budget. The Center is having a fun event you are invited to--the ReThink + Reuse Center’s “It’s How We Roll” bowling event on October 16, 2014 at Splitsville Luxury Lanes from 18:00 to 21:30 hours. My firm, Comcast and Waste Management are major sponsors for this event, but we could use a few more sponsors. If you are interested in sponsoring the event, please let me know by reaching me at mov@chalos

Maritime Law--Florida's Arbitration Code Is Now Revised

Those of us that practice maritime law regularly must always be on the lookout for the contract that may contain an arbitration clause. Thus, any laws related to arbitration are important to those of us practicing in this sector. The Florida legislature has revised the Florida Arbitration Code ("FAC") and named it the Revised Florida Arbitration Code (the " Revised Act"). Since 1967, the FAC had gone mostly unchanged. The Revised Act addresses concepts that were not addressed in the old law, such as the ability of arbitrators to issue provision remedies, challenges based on notice, consolidation of separate arbitration proceedings, required conflict disclosures by arbitrators, among other major changes. The Revised Act lays out a detailed framework for international arbitration conducted under Florida law and repeals sections of the FAC. The Revised Act spells out what experienced arbitrators knew the case law to be, but codifies it all in one pl

Maritime Law--Lozman Case Revisited in Miami?

In Hoefling v. City of Miami , Case no.: 14-12482 (11th Cir. Jan. 25, 2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit revived almost all of Hoefling's claims. You ask, "Who is Hoefling?" Hoefling lived on his sailboat Metis O moored off Dinner Key for nearly a decade—until the day he came home and it was gone. About three months earlier, an officer from the Miami Police Department's Marine Patrol Detail tagged Hoefling's vessel for lacking a sanitary device and a working anchor light. He had a deal to use the facilities at the nearby marina but quickly went out and reportedly bought what he needed to comply. Three months later while he was on a business trip, the City of Miami seized and destroyed his boat and all his belongings. As a result, he was homeless. He sued under § 1983, maritime law, and state law. He stated a claim under the Fourth Amendment for seizure and destruction without notice or cause and a “taking.” At the U.S. Distric

Miami Shipping Law

Search This Blog