State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Marko
| Decision Date | 20 June 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-03228,96-03228 |
| Citation | 695 So.2d 874 |
| Parties | 22 Fla. L. Weekly D1505 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Appellant, v. Lawrence A. MARKO, Sol Mayer, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Nadine S. Diaz of Austin, Ley, Roe, Patsko, Swain & Diaz, St. Petersburg, for Appellant State Farm Mutual Insurance Company.
James P. Ogden, St. Petersburg, for Appellee Lawrence A. Marko.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company appeals the trial court's order denying its claim for attorney's fees and costs pursuant to an offer of judgment. We reverse.
Lawrence A. Marko was injured in an automobile accident. Sol Mayer was the tortfeasor, and he had liability policy limits of $50,000. Marko had an additional $25,000 in uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage with State Farm. Marko's counsel elected to join State Farm as a party defendant in litigation wherein Mayer was the other defendant. Such an election is an important and often difficult decision for those representing plaintiffs. If the underinsured carrier is not joined and the verdict exceeds the tortfeasor's coverage, a plaintiff would surely ask counsel why joinder was not made. Conversely, if the underinsured carrier is joined and the carrier makes an offer of judgment, rejection of the offer may result in attorney's fees and costs being assessed against the plaintiff.
State Farm made an offer of judgment of $1. The jury returned a verdict for $30,000. A judgment was entered in favor of Marko and against Mayer in the amount of $30,000. A separate judgment was entered in favor of State Farm and against Marko reflecting the fact that no damages were assessed against State Farm. State Farm then sought its attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the offer of judgment filed under section 768.79, Florida Statutes (1993).
We will first address the issue of State Farm's costs. Under the circumstances of this case, State Farm need not look to section 768.79 for the recovery of its costs. Rather, State Farm is entitled to recover its costs pursuant to section 57.041(1), Florida Statutes (1993). Under section 57.041 "only a prevailing party is entitled to recover costs." Fernandez v. Hendry Tractor Co., 406 So.2d 1213, 1214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). State Farm was the prevailing party. The holdings of Mincin v. Short, 662 So.2d 1323 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), and Goode v. Udhwani, 648 So.2d 247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), do not negate the application of section 57.041 with regard to the facts of this case. In both of those cases, the defendants 1 made successful offers of judgment in that the judgments ultimately obtained were at least 25% less than the defendants' offers. In each of those cases, the plaintiff contended that section 768.79 and section 57.041 should be viewed "in pari materia." The plaintiff in Goode contended that while the defendant could recover costs from the date of the offer of judgment through trial, the plaintiff could recover all costs through trial pursuant to section 57.041. The plaintiff in Mincin advanced a similar argument. In rejecting such a contention, the Goode court stated: "Although appellee recovered a judgment in her favor, we hold that § 768.79 controls over § 57.041, Florida Statutes (1991), which allows the taxation of costs by a party recovering a judgment."
Under the facts of the present case, where a zero liability judgment was entered in favor of State Farm and against Marko, the effect of section 768.79 negating section 57.041 is not applicable. Accordingly, regardless of the viability of State Farm's offer of judgment pursuant to section 768.79, State Farm is entitled to recover its costs against Marko pursuant to section 57.041.
Next, we turn our attention to the offer of judgment as it relates to State Farm's claim for the recovery of its attorney's fees. The trial court concluded that section 768.79 did not apply. In making that decision, the trial court accepted Marko's argument that section 768.79 applied to a net award, or net judgment, in cases involving a tortfeasor and an uninsured/underinsured carrier, such as State Farm. The argument advanced by Marko was that State Farm was not a separate and distinct defendant, but rather that the coverage provided by State Farm was merely an extension or supplement to the coverage of the tortfeasor, Mayer.
Under such an argument, since the verdict was in the amount of $30,000 and the State Farm offer was $1, the verdict exceeded the amount of the offer, and thus, the offer of judgment under section 768.79 was not viable. We reject that position and conclude that State Farm as the underinsured liability carrier could make an offer of judgment under section 768.79 independent of any offer, or lack of offer, by the tortfeasor, Mayer. Further, State Farm's offer applies only to any potential recovery over and above Mayer's coverage of $50,000. If Marko had accepted the State Farm offer of judgment, that amount could not have been used as a setoff against the $30,000 verdict in favor of Marko and against Mayer. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Ferro, 581 So.2d 605 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Brewton, 538 So.2d 1375 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).
Having determined that the offer of judgment made by State Farm to Marko was not applicable because the statute applied to net awards, the trial court did not discuss the issue of good faith as provided for in section 768.79(7). The facts of this case, however, clearly demonstrate that State Farm made its offer of judgment based on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols
...So.2d 1079, 1082 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Silow, 714 So.2d 647, 651 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Marko, 695 So.2d 874, 876 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). One court has specifically rejected the argument that in an uninsured motorist case section 627.428 precl......
-
Pickett v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
...notes that offers for as little as $1 have been found to be good faith offers. (Doc. 187 at 3 (citing State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Marko, 695 So.2d 874, 876 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)).) But courts have also found that offers in the range of Defendant's $10,000 offer here were not made in good......
-
CodeVentures, LLC v. Vital Motion Inc.
...5th DCA 1998) (fact that offer is nominal not necessarily determinative of issue of good faith); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Marko, 695 So.2d 874 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1997) (offer of $1 treated as in good faith); Peoples Gas Sys. Inc. v. Acme Gas Corp., 689 So.2d 292 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1997) (off......
-
Pennsylvania Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sunrise Club, Inc.
...So.2d at 1004 n. 1--that the $300,000.00 offer was made "in good faith" within the meaning of the statute. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Marko, 695 So.2d 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Eagleman v. Eagleman, 673 So.2d 946 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Schmidt v. Fortner, 629 So.2d 1036 (Fla. 4th DCA 199......
-
Statutory offers of settlement in Florida practice: uses, problems, and solutions.
...Ragusa decision is in apparent conflict with other cases, see notes 6 and 7 infra. (6) E.g., State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Marks, 695 So. 2d 874, 875 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1997) (one dollar offer valid as defendant's statement "that it believes it has no liability and should not be a part o......