TRIAL COURT ERRED IN INVALIDATING THE DRIVER’S PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT BECAUSE IT DID NOT ADDRESS WHETHER THE OFFER INCLUDED SETOFFS—FEE ENTITLEMENT DEPENDS ON THE NET JUDGMENT AFTER SETOFFS AND TO MAKE THE OFFEROR REFERENCE ULTIMATE SETOFFS IS UNNECESSARY AND CREATES A RISK OF CONFUSION
United Cab of Broward, LLC v. Muller, 49 Fla. L. Weekly D2267 (Fla. 4th DCA Nov. 13, 2024):
The proposal for settlement at issue offered the plaintiff $5000 to settle all claims and damages, including attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest. The proposal stated that no amount was allocated to punitive damages (as none were sought by the plaintiff). The proposal further required the plaintiff to execute a general release and confidentiality agreement and dismiss her claims against the driver with prejudice.
After a trial where the jury apportioned 50% of the fault to the plaintiff and the trial court set off PIP expenses and a Medicaid discount, the “net judgment” for the plaintiff amounted to $0.
In opposing the defendant’s entitlement to attorneys’ fees, the plaintiff asserted that the proposal was invalid because it did not state whether it would resolve alldamages that would otherwise be awarded in a final judgment. The trial court ruled to invalidate the proposal because the defendant failed to state whether it was inclusive or exclusive of setoffs.
The court reminded us that not every ambiguity will invalidate a proposal for settlement, noting that only ambiguities that could reasonably affect the offeree’s decision to accept it will have such an effect. Courts should not nitpick proposals for ambiguities because the legislature intended for them to end judicial labor, not create more.
Florida law establishes that plaintiffs’ judgments are subject to reductions for PIP benefits, health insurance discounts, comparative negligence, and other statutory grounds. Neither Section 768.79 nor Rule 1.442 requires defendants to advise plaintiffs of these legal principles in a proposal for settlement.
Because the proposal met the strict requirements of the statute and rule, the trial court erred in refusing to enforce it.