Crawford Door Sales Co. v. Braun, 77-491

Decision Date28 March 1978
Docket NumberNo. 77-491,77-491
Citation357 So.2d 433
PartiesCRAWFORD DOOR SALES COMPANY and American Home Assurance Company, Appellants, v. David BRAUN et al., Appellees.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Greene & Cooper, Miami, for appellants.

Frates, Floyd, Pearson, Stewart, Richman & Greer, Miami, Weaver & Weaver, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.

Before HAVERFIELD, C. J., and NATHAN and HUBBART, JJ.

NATHAN, Judge.

By this appeal, appellants urge that the trial court erred in entering judgment in accordance with a settlement incorporated into the record, asserting that the requirements of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.030(d) were not met and that there existed no valid settlement agreement which could have been recorded. We disagree. Both the law and the record support the correctness of the judgment as entered, and we affirm the order of the trial court.

The action giving rise to the events pertinent to this appeal was a products liability suit against multiple defendants brought by appellees herein, plaintiffs below, David and Sylvia Braun and Allied Leisure Industries, Inc., each acting individually and for the use and benefit of Aetna Insurance Company, their fire insurance carrier. Plaintiffs sought compensation for substantial property damages which resulted from the spread of a fire throughout the Allied Leisure manufacturing facility when defective fire doors failed to close.

Suit was brought against Crawford Door Sales Company (Crawford), which sold and installed the doors, Highlands Insurance Company, Crawford's primary insurer, 1 Celotex Corporation, which designed and manufactured the doors, and Aetna Casualty and Surety Company (Aetna Casualty), Celotex's insurer. A jury verdict was rendered in favor of Celotex and Aetna Casualty, and against Crawford and its insurers.

Only Crawford and its excess carrier, American Home Assurance Company (American Home) are appellants herein. Although American Home was not a party defendant in the original action, it is an appellant here because final judgment was entered against it in accordance with the settlement to be discussed, infra. Initially, the interests of American Home were informally represented by James A. Smith, counsel for Crawford and its primary insurer. But prior to the conclusion of the trial, American Home retained independent counsel, Michael Sikes. Plaintiffs Braun and Allied Leisure were represented by James D. Little. Plaintiff Aetna Insurance was represented by Ben Weaver.

On the evening before the last day of trial, Mr. Sikes contacted Messrs. Little and Weaver, and later Mr. Smith, in an effort to reach a settlement. His client, American Home, feared the possibility of an excess judgment and sought to confine its liability in the event of an adverse verdict to the limits of its policy coverage. Mr. Sikes endeavored to convince Messrs. Little and Weaver to agree to a settlement with Crawford in the amount of $1,100,000, the combined limits of Crawford's primary and excess liability coverage. However, Little and Weaver would not agree to a total settlement with all defendants of less than $2,200,000, and so informed Mr. Sikes. They did not reject the settlement offer from defendants Crawford and Highlands, but neither did they accept it at this juncture.

Mr. Sikes then authorized Mr. Smith to place the offer of $1,100,000 in the record on behalf of defendant Crawford and its insurers, and departed for the weekend, before trial resumed. Mr. Smith did place the offer on the record the following morning, out of the presence of the jury. Neither Mr. Sikes nor any representative of American Home was in the courtroom at the time, but it is undisputed that Mr. Smith acted as authorized by Mr. Sikes when he stated:

Your Honor, for the record, I would like to answer that, after all the testimony has been concluded and my client has evaluated this situation in the form of damages that may be awarded in this case, I answer to everybody that our clients, and not my particular client, but the primary and excess carrier, that the total and final offer we would make would be $1,100,000.

Counsel for plaintiffs did not accept the offer at that time.

After the jury retired for deliberation, Messrs. Little and Weaver told Mr. Smith that they would accept the $1,100,000. Because he was uncertain of whether he could accept the offer once the jury had so retired, Mr. Smith indicated that he thought they should confirm the acceptance with Mr. Sikes. (They did so later that day by sending him a telegram.) After this conversation, Mr. Smith voluntarily left the courtroom, and Mr. Little, in the presence of the trial judge, the court reporter, Mr. Weaver and counsel for Celotex and its insurer, accepted the $1,100,000 offer. The acceptance was entered in the record.

The jury returned several hours later with a verdict. It found against Crawford and its insurers in the amount of $400,000, and found Celotex not guilty. The verdict was entered on the record.

When American Home informed plaintiffs' counsel...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Kladke v. Phillips
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • January 5, 1989
    ...are treated by the courts as contracts which may be enforced. Weinberg v. Lozman, 364 So.2d 841 (Fla.3d DCA 1978); Crawford Door Sales Co. v. Braun, 357 So.2d 433 (Fla.3d DCA), cert. denied, 362 So.2d 1052 (Fla.1978). Accordingly, interest may be awarded at the legal rate from the date a de......
  • Price v. Morgan
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • September 8, 1983
  • Wilson v. Florida Processing Co.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • March 6, 1979
    ...but do not actually occur on the premises. We answer the question in the affirmative." (emphasis supplied) Since, as in Whitten, at 357 So.2d 433, we likewise find no evidence that the defendant in this case was guilty of willful or wanton misconduct as opposed to mere simple negligence, th......
  • Crawford Door Sales Co. v. Braun
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • September 7, 1978

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT