Proposals for Settlement and Offers of Judgment are crucial litigation tools in Florida, designed to encourage early case resolution and impose financial consequences on parties who reject reasonable settlement offers. These mechanisms are governed by Florida Statute §768.79 and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442, which set conditions for a party to recover attorney’s fees if the opposing party rejects a settlement offer and fails to obtain a significantly better result at trial.
While these provisions work clearly in cases involving only monetary damages, their application is more complex when a party seeks both monetary and non-monetary relief. Courts have refined the interpretation of §768.79 in hybrid cases and addressed key issues like good faith requirements, recent procedural rule amendments, and federal court applicability. This article provides a comprehensive review of the legal framework, case law, procedural requirements, and the evolving impact of recent amendments.
Legal Framework
Florida Statute §768.79 was enacted to encourage settlements by penalizing parties who reject reasonable settlement proposals and fail to secure a significantly better judgment at trial. The statute states that (a) if a defendant’s offer is rejected and the plaintiff’s final judgment is at least 25% less than the offer, the plaintiff must pay the defendant’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs; or (b) if a plaintiff’s demand is rejected and the final judgment exceeds the demand by at least 25%, the defendant must pay the plaintiff’s fees and costs.
To be valid and enforceable, a proposal must be in writing, expressly state that it is made pursuant to §768.79. and specify the total amount offered, including all relevant conditions
Under the statute, a proposal must be served no earlier than 90 days after service of process and no later than 45 days before trial. The offeree has 30 days to accept before the offer is deemed rejected.
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442 supplements §768.79 by establishing additional procedural requirements. It mandates that proposals must identify the parties involved, state whether attorneys’ fees are included, and exclude non-monetary terms (except a voluntary dismissal with prejudice or terms authorized by statute). Joint proposals must apportion the offer among the parties to allow independent evaluation by each offeree.
Application to Cases Involving Both Monetary and Non-Monetary Relief
One of the most litigated issues regarding §768.79 is its applicability in cases seeking both damages and equitable relief. Courts generally hold that §768.79 applies only to actions for damages and does not extend to cases seeking solely equitable relief. However, in cases where a plaintiff seeks both damages and injunctive relief, courts assess whether the damages are separate and distinct or merely incidental to the equitable claim.
In Diamond Aircraft Industries, Inc. v. Horowitch, 107 So. 3d 362 (Fla. 2013), the Florida Supreme Court ruled that §768.79 does not apply to cases primarily seeking equitable relief, even if damages are also requested. Because the plaintiff in that case sought both specific performance and monetary damages, the Court found the statute inapplicable since the damages were not independent from the equitable claim.
Similarly, in Winter Park Imports, Inc. v. JM Family Enterprises, 77 So. 3d 227 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011), the Fifth District Court of Appeal ruled that §768.79 did not apply because the primary relief sought was equitable, with damages being incidental. However, in Tower Hill Signature Ins. Co. v. Javellano, 33 So. 3d 867 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), the Third District Court of Appeal found §768.79 applicable because the lawsuit primarily sought monetary damages, despite also requesting declaratory relief.
The key takeaway from these rulings is that courts will evaluate the “true relief” sought in a case. If damages are central and independent, the statute may apply. If damages are merely incidental to equitable relief, the statute will not apply.
Good Faith Requirement in Settlement Proposals
Florida courts require that Proposals for Settlement be made in good faith. A court may disallow an award of attorney’s fees if it finds that the proposal was not made in a genuine attempt to settle the case. In Evans v. Piotraczk, 724 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), the court held that a nominal offer must have a reasonable foundation based on the merits of the case; otherwise, it may be deemed invalid. Similarly, in McMahan v. Toto, 311 F.3d 1077 (11th Cir. 2002), the Eleventh Circuit analyzed whether a low settlement offer could be deemed a sham, rendering it unenforceable.
Recent Amendments to Rule 1.442 and Procedural Impact
In 2022, the Florida Supreme Court amended Rule 1.442 to prohibit non-monetary terms in Proposals for Settlement, except for a voluntary dismissal with prejudice or terms expressly authorized by statute. This amendment aligns Rule 1.442 with §768.79, ensuring that settlement offers focus exclusively on monetary compensation.
Previously, litigants often included general releases, confidentiality agreements, or cooperation clauses in settlement proposals. These are no longer permitted. The practical effect is that settlement proposals must now be clear and limited to a specific monetary amount, making compliance with the rule more straightforward while limiting flexibility in settlement negotiations.
Federal Court Considerations
In federal diversity cases, §768.79 is considered substantive law and applies in federal courts, while Rule 1.442 does not. This distinction was affirmed in Primo v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 661 F. App’x 661 (11th Cir. 2016) and Menchise v. Akerman Senterfitt, 532 F.3d 1146 (11th Cir. 2008).
Federal courts also analyze whether §768.79 conflicts with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 (Offer of Judgment). In Horowitch v. Diamond Aircraft Indus., Inc., 645 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2011), the Eleventh Circuit held that Rule 68 does not displace §768.79 but requires careful procedural navigation.
Arbitration Application of §768.79 and Rule 1.442
Florida courts have ruled that §768.79 does not automatically apply to arbitration unless explicitly incorporated into the arbitration agreement. Unlike in litigation, where fee-shifting provisions are statutory, arbitration is contractual in nature, meaning parties must expressly agree to apply Florida’s Offer of Judgment statute.
In Miville v. Abitol, 51 So. 3d 1284 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011), the court held that §768.79 does not apply to arbitration unless the parties’ contract specifically includes a provision allowing for its enforcement. Similarly, in Cassedy v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 751 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), the court found that attorney’s fees under §768.79 were not recoverable in arbitration without express contractual or statutory authorization.
However, Florida courts have acknowledged that parties may contractually agree to incorporate §768.79 into arbitration proceedings. In Citigroup, Inc. v. Boles, 914 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), the court addressed whether an arbitration agreement’s fee-shifting provision could incorporate Florida’s cost-shifting statutes.
This means that, in practice that if the arbitration agreement is silent on fee-shifting, §768.79 will not apply. If the arbitration agreement explicitly incorporates §768.79, Florida courts may enforce it in arbitration. However, even if §768.79 does not apply, arbitrators may still have discretion to award attorney’s fees under the Florida Arbitration Code (Chapter 682, Florida Statutes), depending on the arbitration agreement.
Conclusion
Proposals for Settlement and Offers of Judgment remain powerful litigation tools in Florida. However, their applicability in hybrid monetary-equitable claims requires case-specific analysis. Courts evaluate whether damages are independent or incidental to equitable relief when determining applicability.
The 2022 amendments to Rule 1.442 reinforce strict compliance requirements, ensuring that Proposals for Settlement exclude non-monetary terms. In federal cases, §768.79 applies, but Rule 1.442 does not, and in arbitration, fee-shifting provisions must be explicitly incorporated.
Understanding these evolving legal standards is essential for effectively using settlement proposals in Florida litigation.
Osherow, PLLC info@osherowpllc.com 561.257.0880
