Summary
The Supreme Court of Florida held that an action to recover personal injury protection benefits is a civil action for damages subject to Florida's offer of judgment statute. It further held that the offer of judgment statute does not conflict with the PIP statute's one-way attorney's-fee provision and does not violate constitutional access-to-courts protections. However, the insurer's settlement proposal was too ambiguous regarding the scope of a general release to satisfy Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442, so the attorney's-fee award was reversed.
Holdings
- A suit for PIP benefits is a civil action for damages subject to Florida's offer-of-judgment statute, section 768.79.
- The PIP statute's provision authorizing attorney's fees for prevailing insureds does not preclude an insurer from recovering post-offer fees under section 768.79 when the statutory conditions are met.
- Applying the offer-of-judgment statute to PIP suits does not violate article I, section 21 of the Florida Constitution or render the PIP statutory scheme unconstitutional.
- A general release is a relevant condition or nonmonetary term that must be stated with particularity under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442.
- State Farm's proposal was invalid under Rule 1.442 because its broad general-release language could reasonably be construed to extinguish Nichols's separate uninsured-motorist claim.
Questions Presented
- Whether a suit by an insured to recover personal injury protection benefits is a civil action for damages subject to Florida's offer-of-judgment statute.
- Whether the PIP statute's provision authorizing attorney's fees for prevailing insureds precludes an insurer from recovering fees under the offer-of-judgment statute.
- Whether applying the offer-of-judgment statute to PIP suits violates the Florida Constitution's access-to-courts guarantee.
- Whether State Farm's settlement proposal, requiring Nichols to execute a general release, satisfied Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442's particularity requirements.
Disposition
approved
Cases Cited (24)
- Nichols v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 851 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)(followed)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 913 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 2005)(procedural history)
- U.S. Sec. Ins. Co. v. Cahuasqui, 760 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)(followed)
- Tran v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 860 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)(followed)
- Clines v. State, 912 So. 2d 550, 555-56 (Fla. 2005)(followed)
- A.R. Douglass, Inc. v. McRainey, 102 Fla. 1141, 137 So. 157, 159 (1931)(followed)
- State v. J.M., 824 So. 2d 105, 112 (Fla. 2002)(followed)
- State ex rel. Johnson v. Vizzini, 227 So. 2d 205, 207 (Fla. 1969)(followed)
- Danis Indus. Corp. v. Ground Improvement Techniques, Inc., 645 So. 2d 420, 421 (Fla. 1994)(limited)
- Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. DeSalvo, 748 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 1999)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 24.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…