Audiffred v. Arnold
Decision Date | 16 April 2015 |
Docket Number | No. SC12–2377.,SC12–2377. |
Citation | 161 So.3d 1274 |
Parties | Valerie AUDIFFRED, Petitioner, v. Thomas B. ARNOLD, Respondent. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Marcus Joseph Michles, II of Michles & Booth, P.A., Pensacola, FL, and Louis Kahn Rosenbloum of Louis K. Rosenbloum, P.A., Pensacola, FL, for Petitioner.
Jeffrey Errol Bigman of Smith, Hood, Loucks, Stout, Bigman, & Brock, P.A., Daytona Beach, FL, and Michelle Lynn Hendrix of Vernis & Bowling, Pensacola, FL, for Respondent.
Petitioner Valerie Audiffred seeks review of the decision of the First District Court of Appeal in Arnold v. Audiffred, 98 So.3d 746 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), on the basis that it expressly and directly conflicts with decisions of the Third, Fourth, and Fifth District Courts of Appeal on a question of law. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.
Valerie Audiffred and her husband, Robert Kimmons, filed an action against Thomas Arnold that arose from an automobile collision. Arnold, 98 So.3d at 747. In the complaint, Audiffred sought damages for her injuries and for vehicle repairs. Id. Kimmons sought damages based upon loss of consortium. Id. On April 29, 2010, a settlement proposal was served upon Arnold which provided:
Arnold constructively rejected the proposal when he did not respond within thirty days. Id.; see also Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442(f)(1) ().
After a jury trial, a verdict was entered against Arnold in the amount of $26,055.54 for Audiffred's past medical expenses. Arnold, 98 So.3d at 747. However, the jury did not award anything to Audiffred for permanent damages or to Kimmons for the loss of consortium claim. Id. at 747–48. Audiffred and Kimmons then filed a motion that sought an award of costs and attorney's fees pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2014),1 the offer of judgment statute, and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442. Id. at 748. Arnold moved to strike the settlement proposal on the basis that it was defective because it was filed only on behalf of Audiffred, but offered to settle the claims of both Audiffred and Kimmons. Arnold asserted that unapportioned settlement proposals that resolve the claims of multiple parties are improper, even where one claim is a loss of consortium claim filed by a spouse.
After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion to strike and entered an amended final judgment that awarded Audiffred and Kimmons costs and attorney's fees. The trial court explained:
the offer in this case was clear and unambiguous in that it identified the parties and clearly identified the monetary and non-monetary conditions, that both plaintiffs would dismiss their lawsuit with prejudice. Regardless of whether or not Valerie Audiffred had the authority to bind Robert Kimmons to a voluntary dismissal in the event that the defendant had accepted the proposal for settlement, the defendant clearly had the ability to evaluate the proposal and accept it on its terms.... Under the circumstances of this case[,] where Kimmons was represented by the same attorney that represented Audiffred, the Court finds that the proposal for settlement, including a provision that both plaintiffs would dismiss their lawsuit against the defendant, was unambiguous and legally sufficient.
On appeal, the First District reversed the award of costs and attorney's fees. Arnold, 98 So.3d at 747. The district court concluded that the settlement offer constituted a joint proposal because, when read as a whole, it clearly expressed that Audiffred and Kimmons would dismiss their claims against Arnold with prejudice upon acceptance. Id. at 748. The district court also noted:
The Florida Supreme Court stated in Willis Shaw Express, Inc. v. Hilyer Sod, Inc. that “[a] strict construction of the plain language of rule 1.442(c)(3) requires that offers of judgment made by multiple offerors must apportion the amounts attributable to each offeror.” 849 So.2d 276, 278–79 (Fla.2003). When multiple offerors make a proposal for settlement to a single offeree, that individual is entitled to know the amount and terms attributable to each offeror in order to properly evaluate the offer. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Materiale, 787 So.2d 173, 175 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).
Id. Relying on Hilyer Sod, the First District held that the proposal was invalid for failure to comply with section 768.79 and rule 1.442 because it did not apportion the settlement amount between Audiffred and Kimmons. Id. at 747–48.
We granted review of Arnold based upon express and direct conflict with decisions that hold a proposal for settlement made by a single offeror to a single offeree which upon acceptance will dismiss the entire action, including claims for or against a party who is neither an offeror nor offeree, is not an undifferentiated “joint proposal” that renders the offer invalid and unenforceable. See, e.g., Andrews v. Frey, 66 So.3d 376 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) ; Eastern Atl. Realty & Inv. Inc. v. GSOMR LLC, 14 So.3d 1215 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) ; Alioto–Alexander v. Toll Bros., Inc., 12 So.3d 915 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).
Section 768.79, Florida Statutes, governs offers of judgment, and rule 1.442 delineates the procedures that implement this statutory provision. See Hilyer Sod, 849 So.2d at 278. Section 768.79 provides, in relevant part:
Rule 1.442 provides, in relevant part:
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442 (emphasis supplied).2
In the recent case Pratt v. Weiss, 161 So.3d 1268, No. SC12–1783, 2015 WL 1724574 (Fla. Apr. 16, 2015), we articulated the standards under which motions for costs and attorney's fees sought pursuant to section 768.79 and rule 1.442 are evaluated:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Anderson v. Hilton Hotels Corp.
...Anderson's offer was actually a joint offer intended to settle the claims of both Troy and Paula Anderson, as occurred in Audiffred v. Arnold, 161 So.3d 1274 (Fla.2015). Not only would such a reading be contrary to the plain language of Troy Anderson's proposal, but the proposal in Audiffre......
-
Maines v. Fox, s. 1D14–5917
...reasonably affect the offeree's decision, the proposal will not satisfy the particularity requirement.” Id.; see also Audiffred v. Arnold, 161 So.3d 1274, 1279 (Fla.2015). Here, we find the October 8, 2013, proposals for settlement contained patent ambiguities which could reasonably have af......
-
Greer v. Ivey
...to the proposal for settlement they were beneficiaries.Page 12 Plaintiff's argument relies on the holding in Audiffred v. Arnold, 161 So. 3d 1274 (Fla. 2015). There, the court explained that "[t]he purpose of the apportionment requirement in the rule [1.442] is to allow each offeree to eval......
-
Pacheco v. Gonzalez
...governs offers of judgment, and rule 1.442 delineates the procedures that implement this statutory provision." Audiffred v. Arnold, 161 So.3d 1274, 1277 (Fla. 2015). The Florida Supreme Court has made clear that Florida courts must strictly construe the statute and the rule as they "are in ......