Insurance Co. of North America v. Twitty

Decision Date18 July 1975
Docket NumberNo. 74--1210,74--1210
CitationInsurance Co. of North America v. Twitty, 319 So.2d 141 (Fla. App. 1975)
PartiesINSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, a Foreign Corporation, et al., Defendants-Appellants, v. James H. TWITTY, Plaintiff-Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Edna L. Caruso of Howell, Kirby, Montgomery, D'Aiuto and Dean, West Palm Beach, for defendants-appellants.

Richard W. Bates, Orlando, and Stenstrom, Davis & McIntosh, Sanford, for plaintiff-appellee.

MARKO, PAUL, Associate Judge.

This is an appeal from an order entered after a jury verdict against the defendant for damages in a personal injury action.

The defendant made an offer of judgment pursuant to F.R.C.P. 1.442 for 'the total amount of $4,000. including plaintiff's taxable costs accrued to the date hereof, as well as any outstanding liens.'The phrase 'any outstanding liens' referred to the personal injury protection benefits carrier's claim against the plaintiff.

The offer of judgment was not accepted and the jury returned a verdict of $2,500. in favor of the plaintiff.The plaintiff thereafter, filed his motion to tax costs as follows:

1. Clerk of Circuit Court, fee for
                   filing Complaint                      $    20.00
                2.  State Insurance Commissioner, fee
                   for service of process on
                   Insurance Company of North America          5.00
                3.  Secretary of State, fee for
                   attempted nonresident service of
                   process of defendants, Mayfield
                   and Worthen                                10.00
                4.  Postage for registered, return
                   receipt requested, deliver to
                   addressee only, mailing of copies of
                   Summons, Complaint and Notice
                   of Suit and Service of Process
                   to defendants, Mayfield and
                   Worthen                                     3.20
                5.  Mary Moore M. Ritchie, per diem
                   original and copy of deposition
                   of James Moore, M.D.                       86.35
                6.  Rebecca D. Dickerson, per diem
                   original and copy of deposition of
                   George Debnam, M.D.                        82.60
                7.  James Moore, M.D., expert
                   witness fee for deposition                 60.00
                8.  George Starke, M.D., witness
                   fee and mileage for trial                  12.52
                9.  Mary Moore M. Ritchie, per diem
                   originals and copies of depositions
                   of Dr. Moore and Dr. Debnam               130.75
                                                         ----------
                                                         $   410.42
                

The first four items of these costs, which amount to $38.20, were incurred by the plaintiff prior to the offer for judgment.

The plaintiff argues that the prevailing party is entitled to costs and cites F.S. 57.041:

'57.041 Costs: recovery from losing party

'(1).The party recovering judgment shall recover all his legal costs and charges which shall be included in the judgment; but this section does not apply to executors or administrators in actions when they are not liable for costs.Costs may be collected by execution on the judgment or order assessing costs.'

The defendant then filed its motion to tax costs against the plaintiff as follows:

"1) Cost of copy of deposition of
                    Dr. Moore                       $    15.09
                 2) Cost of copy of deposition of
                    Dr. Debnam                           16.80
                 3) Attorneys' fee for covering
                    depositions in North Carolina       287.50
                 4) Court Reporter's expense for
                    attendance at trial                 135.00
                Balance forwarded                   $   454.39
                ----------------------------------  -----------
                 5) Costs of copies of depositions
                    of Dr. Moore and Dr. Debnam
                    (second time)                        21.60
                 6) Attorneys fee subsequent to
                    Offer of Judgment                 1,300.00
                                                    -----------
                                    Total           $ 1,775.99"
                

The defendant argues that these costs were incurred by them after its offer of judgment for $4,000. which was refused and prior to jury verdict of $2,500. in favor of the plaintiff.Defendant relies on F.R.C.P. 1.442.

'Rule 1.442.Offer of Judgment

At any time more than ten days before the trial begins a party defending against a claim may serve an offer on the adverse party to allow judgment to be taken against him for the money or property or to the effect specified in his offer with costs then accrued.If the adverse party serves written notice that offer is accepted within ten days after service of it, either party may then file the offer and notice of acceptance with proof of service and thereupon the clerk shall enter judgment.An offer not accepted shall be deemed withdrawn and evidence of it is not admissible except in a proceeding to determine costs.If the judgment finally obtained by the...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
8 cases
  • Kay v. Katzen
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • October 2, 1990
    ...costs, not nontaxable costs as well. Horn v. Corkland Corp., 518 So.2d 418, 421 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Insurance Co. of North America v. Twitty, 319 So.2d 141, 143 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), cert. denied, 330 So.2d 22 (Fla.1976). Contrary to the defendant's argument, nothing we have said in Santiest......
  • Horn v. Corkland Corp.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • January 6, 1988
    ...taxable costs incurred by the Horns prior to the offer as apportioned by the trial judge on remand. See Insurance Company of North America v. Twitty, 319 So.2d 141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); see also Statewide Uniform Guidelines for Taxation of Costs in Civil Although Mary Horn was not a party at......
  • Wimbledon Townhouse Condominium I Ass'n, Inc. v. Kessler, 80-1673
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • December 8, 1982
    ...include 'costs then accrued'.Attorneys fees are not taxable costs under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442. Insurance Co. of N. Am. v. Twitty, 319 So.2d 141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), cert. denied, 330 So.2d 22 (Fla.1976). Accord Greenwood v. Stevenson, 88 F.R.D. 225 (D.R.I.1980); cf. Waters v......
  • Benitez v. State, 77-289
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • September 27, 1977
    ...trial judge. See White v. Walker, 5 Fla. 478 (1854); Crane v. Stulz, 136 So.2d 238 (Fla.2d DCA 1961); and Insurance Company of North America v. Twitty, 319 So.2d 141 (Fla.4th DCA 1975). ...
  • Get Started for Free