Willis Shaw Express, Inc. v. Hilyer Sod, Inc.
Decision Date | 13 March 2003 |
Docket Number | No. SC02-1521.,SC02-1521. |
Citation | 849 So.2d 276 |
Parties | WILLIS SHAW EXPRESS, INC., etc., et al., Petitioners, v. HILYER SOD, INC., Respondent. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
John W. Frost, II and Peter W. van den Boom of Frost, Tamayo, Sessums & Aranda, P.A., Bartow, FL, for Petitioners.
Randy Fischer and R. Lance Wright of Boehm, Brown, Seacrest & Fischer, P.A., Ocala, FL, for Respondent.
We have for review Hilyer Sod, Inc. v. Willis Shaw Express, Inc., 817 So.2d 1050 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), which certified conflict with the decisions in Flight Express, Inc. v. Robinson, 736 So.2d 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), and Spruce Creek Development Co. of Ocala, Inc. v. Drew, 746 So.2d 1109 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. For the reasons that follow, we approve the decision of the district court below.
The facts of the instant case as stated by the district court are:
4. The total amount being offered with this proposal is NINETY-FIVE
THOUSAND ONE AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($95,001.00).
Hilyer Sod, 817 So.2d at 1051-52. The district court reversed and held that "an offer of settlement made jointly by multiple plaintiffs must apportion amounts `attributable to each party.'" Id. at 1054 (quoting Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442(c)(3)).
In reaching that holding, the district court noted that the district courts of appeal are split "as to whether an offer from multiple plaintiffs must apportion the offer among the plaintiffs." Id. at 1053. The district court below sided with the Second District Court of Appeal's analysis in Allstate Insurance Co. v. Materiale, 787 So.2d 173, 175 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (). The district court below then certified conflict with Flight Express, 736 So.2d at 797, and Spruce Creek, 746 So.2d at 1116, both of which held that the lack of apportionment in offerors' proposal for settlement did not render the proposal invalid. Willis Shaw Express, Inc., and Edward McAlpine now petition this Court to quash the district court's decision.
Section 768.79, Florida Statutes (1999) (), provides a sanction against a party who unreasonably rejects a settlement offer. Section 768.79 provides in pertinent part:
If a plaintiff files a demand for judgment which is not accepted by the defendant within 30 days and the plaintiff recovers a judgment in an amount at least 25 percent greater than the offer, she or he shall be entitled to recover reasonable costs and attorney's fees incurred from the date of the filing of the demand.
The statute further provides that an offer must:
§ 768.79(2), Fla. Stat.
Section 768.79 is implemented by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442 ("Proposals for Settlement"). This rule was amended in 1996 to require greater detail in settlement proposals. See In re Amendments to Fla. Rules of Civil Pro., 682 So.2d 105, 107 (Fla.1996)
(effective Jan. 1, 1997). As amended, rule 1.442(c)(3) provides:
A proposal may be made by or to any party or parties and by or to any combination of parties properly identified in the proposal. A joint proposal shall state the amount and terms attributable to each party.
(Emphasis added.) This language must be strictly construed because the offer of judgment statute and rule are in derogation of the common law rule that each party pay its own fees. See Major League Baseball v. Morsani, 790 So.2d 1071, 1077-78 (Fla.2001)
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Royal Palm Vill. Residents, Inc. v. Slider
...The common-law rule in Florida, as elsewhere, is that "each party pay[s] its own [attorneys’] fees." Willis Shaw Express, Inc. v. Hilyer Sod, Inc. , 849 So. 2d 276, 278 (Fla. 2003). As a fee-shifting statute in derogation of the common law, § 723.068 is "strictly construed." Campbell v. Gol......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols
...and rule should be strictly construed because the procedure is in derogation of the common law and is penal in nature."), approved, 849 So.2d 276 (Fla.2003); Schussel v. Ladd Hairdressers, Inc., 736 So.2d 776, 778 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (noting that "section 768.79 and Florida Rule of Civil Pr......
-
Sarkis v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...So.2d 570, 571 (Fla.1958). We have recently applied this rule of strict construction to section 768.79. See Willis Shaw Express, Inc. v. Hilyer Sod, Inc., 849 So.2d 276 (Fla.2003). Throughout the statutory and rule history of offers of judgment, the use of a multiplier has never been expres......
-
Goldman v. Campbell
...are in derogation of the common law rule that parties are responsible for their own attorney's fees. See Willis Shaw Express, Inc. v. Hilyer Sod, Inc., 849 So.2d 276, 278 (Fla.2003). It has thus held that the statute and rule must be strictly construed. See Major League Baseball v. Morsani,......
-
Statutory offers of settlement in Florida practice: uses, problems, and solutions.
...as ambiguous. (31) Allstate Indemnity Corp. v. Hingson, 808 So. 2d 197, 199 (Fla. 2002); Willis Shaw Express Inc. v. Hilyer Sod Inc., 849 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 2003); Lamb v. Matetzschk, 906 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. (32) Allstate Indemnity Corp. v. Hingson, 808 So. 2d 197, 199 (Fla. 2002). (33) Hingson......
-
Drafting and analyzing joint proposals for settlement.
...that a proposal made by one defendant to multiple plaintiffs must be apportioned. (10) Willis Shaw Express, Inc. v. Hilyer Sod, Inc., 849 So.2d 276 (Fla. 2003), addressed a joint proposal for settlement made by multiple plaintiffs and required that a joint proposal for settlement made by mu......
-
Enforcing proposals for settlement and offers of judgment in federal court: mission impossible?
...959 So. 2d at 226-227 (discussing Lamb v. Matetzschk, 906 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 2005); Willis Shaw Express, Inc. v. Hilyer Sod, Inc., 849 So. 2d 276, 278 (Fla. 2003)); Hess v. Walton, 898 So. 2d 1046, 1048 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 2005); RLS Bus. Ventures, Inc. v. Second Chance Wholesale, Inc., 784 So. ......