Legal Topics

DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT FEES–REFERENCES TO PAYMENT BEING MADE BY A CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR/INSURER DID NOT RENDER THE PROPOSAL AMBIGUOUS OR “IMPOSSIBLE,” AND THE WORD “CONTEMPLATED” DOES NOT CREATE UNCERTAINTY WHEN THE PROPOSAL OTHERWISE MAKES CLEAR THE OFFER AND OBLIGATION TO PAY

Jul 14th, 2026 in by admin

Town of Jupiter v. Armes, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D591 (Fla. 4th DCA Mar. 25, 2026):

The plaintiff sued the defendant in a personal injury case arising from an accident allegedly caused by a door on the defendant’s property.  Before trial, the defendant served a proposal for settlement for $500, offering to settle all claims in exchange for a voluntary dismissal with prejudice.  The plaintiff did not accept. The case went to trial and the jury returned a defense verdict, finding no negligence.

After final judgment, the defendant moved for fees based on the rejected proposal. The fight centered on one paragraph stating that, if accepted, it was “contemplated” that PGCS Claim Services would pay $500 “on behalf of” the defendant.  The plaintiff argued that language was ambiguous and created an impossible condition because PGCS was a nonparty and allegedly not bound to pay.  The trial court denied fees based on this ambiguity.

The Fourth reversed. Reading the proposal as a whole, the court held it was plain to see that the settlement agreement was between the defendant and the plaintiff and the $500 amount was clear.

Also, the court found that the fact that the payment would be processed through the defendant’s insurer/claims agent would not reasonably affect a plaintiff’s ability to evaluate whether to accept the offer, nor did it create an “impossible condition” (plaintiff asserted since nothing obligated the third party to pay, it was impossible to know whether she would be paid if she dismissed the suit). The court said that once accepted, the proposal becomes a binding contract enforceable against the defendant, irrespective of whether the check is cut by the insurer/administrator. It also found that the word “contemplated” did not create ambiguity where the proposal immediately followed with “shall pay” and otherwise made the offer and exchange unmistakable. The court defined ambiguity as “the condition of admitting more than one meaning” which was not the case.

 The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.