Aspen v. Bayless
| Decision Date | 26 July 1990 |
| Docket Number | 75559,Nos. 75107,s. 75107 |
| Citation | 564 So.2d 1081 |
| Parties | 15 Fla. L. Weekly S403 Karen Jeanne Smolic ASPEN, f/k/a Karen Jeanne Smolic, Petitioner, v. Brooke T. BAYLESS, Respondent. Sandra HOUGH, etc., et al., Petitioners, v. Joseph W. HUFFMAN, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
H. Shelton Philips of Kaleel & Kaleel, P.A., St. Petersburg, for petitioner Aspen.
Andrew A. Graham, Maureen M. Matheson and Robert M. Moletteire of Reinman, Harrell, Graham, Mitchell & Wattwood, P.A., Melbourne, for petitioner Hough.
T. Philip Hanson, Jr. of Greenfelder, Mander, Hanson & Murphy, Dade City, for respondent Bayless.
Robert L. Donald and H.A. Rigdon of Haas, Boehm, Brown, Ridgon & Seacrest, P.A., Tampa, for respondent Huffman.
Janet DeLaura Harrison of Smalbein, Johnson, Rosier, Bussey, Rooney & Ebbets, P.A., Rockledge, for respondent Woodling.
Alan E. McMichael of Stripling & McMichael, P.A., Gainesville, amicus curiae for The Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers.
Jack W. Shaw, Jr. of Mathews, Osborne, McNatt & Cobb, P.A., Jacksonville, amicus curiae for Florida Defense Lawyers' Ass'n.
Bonita L. Kneeland of Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, P.A., Tampa, amicus curiae for The Florida Ass'n for Ins. Review.
Donna E. Albert, Fort Lauderdale, amicus curiae for Watersports Claims Management, Ltd.
We have for review Aspen v. Bayless, 552 So.2d 298 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), and Hough v. Huffman, 555 So.2d 942 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). In Aspen the second district certified the following question as being of great public importance:
Can a nonparty recover costs it has incurred on behalf of a named party under the rule and statutes regarding offers of judgment, or are costs recoverable under those provisions only by parties who have paid costs or incurred liability to do so?
552 So.2d at 301. In Hough the fifth district certified conflict with Aspen, Turner v. D.N.E., Inc., 547 So.2d 1245 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), and City of Boca Raton v. Boca Villas Corp., 372 So.2d 485 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution. We hold that a party is not precluded from recovering costs under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442, or after judgment in its favor, when someone other than the named party pays or advances those costs. Accordingly, we quash Aspen and approve Hough.
Bayless sued Aspen, seeking damages for personal injuries received in an automobile accident. Aspen, represented by her insurance carrier, filed an offer of judgment. After refusing that offer, Bayless received a judgment, but for less than the offer. The trial court denied Aspen's motion to tax costs under rule 1.442 because Aspen's insurance policy provided that the carrier would pay all costs and she, therefore, neither paid the costs nor incurred any liability for them. The district court affirmed and held, although with some reservations, that under common law principles costs are in the nature of indemnification and, generally, are not awardable to nonparties.
In Hough a child's parents sued the driver of a car for injuries the child received in an accident. A jury found no negligence on Huffman's part, and the trial court awarded him costs, even though his costs had been paid by his insurance company. The district court affirmed and recognized conflict with the second and fourth districts' decisions.
The fifth district noted that a defendant's insurance carrier "may ... be fully liable for the plaintiff's costs and expenses if the plaintiff prevails, and the plaintiff may, after obtaining a judgment against an insured defendant, join the insurer as a party." Hough, 555 So.2d at 944. Although costs are not recoverable by a nonparty as a general rule, the court reasoned that the general rule should be different when a nonparty, such as an insurance carrier, is liable for a prevailing party's costs. Applying that reasoning, the court stated:
Insurance is a business "adventure." It "is not founded on any philanthropic or charitable principle." After an insurance company has paid a loss on behalf of its insured, it is entitled to subrogation either by express contract rights, or by equitable subrogation by operation of law. This right of subrogation would include rights against its own insured, if the insured were to recover and attempt to keep costs and expenses awarded in this case.
Failure to allow a cost award to a prevailing defendant who is insured, because of the fact of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dictiomatic, Inc. v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co.
...under the statute as "penalties" for the declining party's failure to accept the offer and terminate the litigation); Aspen v. Bayless, 564 So.2d 1081, 1083 (Fla. 1990). In the present case, on February 7, 1994, the Defendant served a Offer of Judgment addressed to Plaintiff Dictiomatic in ......
-
Keesee v. Bank of America, Na, 603CV1746ORL31JGG.
...§ 768.79(1). The purpose and intent of this statute is "to encourage parties to settle claims without going to trial." Aspen v. Bayless, 564 So.2d 1081, 1083 (Fla.1990). For this reason, Florida courts are to apply Section 768.79 even to actions under the substantive law of other states bec......
-
Hoffman v. Oakley
...party could still receive costs under statutory provision granting costs to "party recovering judgment"). See also Aspen v. Bayless, 564 So.2d 1081, 1083 (Fla.1990) (approving Based on the plain language of the statute,4 we do not believe N.C. Gen.Stat. § 6-1 should be construed as precludi......
-
BDO Seidman v. British Car Auctions, Inc.
...actions for damages brought in Florida courts is consistent with the legislative intent, which is to reduce litigation. Aspen v. Bayless, 564 So.2d 1081, 1083 (Fla.1990). An action for damages based on the substantive law of another jurisdiction has the same impact on the Florida court syst......
-
A practitioner's guide to the taxation of costs in civil actions.
...2d 1022, 1025 (Fla. 1991). Id. (13) Balseca v. Callies Electric, Inc., 566 So. 2d 322, 324 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1990). (14) Aspen v. Bayless, 564 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 1990). (15) McArthur Dairy, Inc. v. Guillen, 470 So. 2d 747, 749 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1985). (16) Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Richardson,......