Infinity Auto Insurance Company v. Miami Open MRI, LLC, A/A/O Rolando Amador

Summary

The Florida Third District Court of Appeal held that Infinity Auto Insurance Company's proposal for settlement was sufficiently clear and definite under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442 and section 768.79. The court concluded that the proposal resolved only Miami Open MRI's claims in the underlying action and that its reservation-of-rights language did not extinguish or ambiguously address separate pending or future claims. The court reversed and remanded with instructions to grant Infinity Auto's motion for appellate attorney's fees and for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. The proposal for settlement was sufficiently clear and definite and was not ambiguous when read as a whole, particularly in conjunction with Paragraph Four, which limited the claims being resolved to Miami Open's claims in the underlying action.
2. Paragraph Eight did not extinguish any separate pending or future claims; it merely reserved Infinity Auto's rights and defenses if such a claim were later asserted.
3. Infinity Auto was entitled to have its motion for appellate attorney's fees granted because its rejected proposal for settlement complied with the governing statutory and procedural requirements.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Infinity Auto's proposal for settlement was ambiguous under section 768.79, Florida Statutes, and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442.
2. Whether Paragraph Eight of the proposal for settlement was designed to extinguish separate pending or future claims.
3. Whether Infinity Auto was entitled to attorney's fees and costs based on the rejected proposal for settlement.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded