Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

September 18, 2014 by admin

Attorney’s fees — Proposal for settlement — Voluntary dismissal with prejudice is judgment for purposes of entitlement to attorney’s fees under section 768.79(6)

21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1055a



Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2110ESPI



Insurance — Attorney’s fees — Proposal for settlement — Voluntary dismissal with prejudice is judgment for purposes of entitlement to attorney’s fees under section 768.79(6) — Insurer had reasonable basis for nominal proposal for settlement where plaintiff was not listed as passenger on police crash report

OLEMA PEREZ ESPINOS, Plaintiff, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Defendant. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Civil Division. Case No. 08-10385 CC 05 (08). May 28, 2014. Wendell M. Graham, Judge. Counsel: Peter Deprimo, for Plaintiff. Catherine Massard Ribetti, for Defendant.

ORDER FINDING DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO FEES AND COST

THIS CAUSE having come to be heard before this Honorable court on May 19, 2014 and being otherwise duly advised in the premises enters the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1) On or about July 14, 2008, Defendant filed an Answer and Affirmative Defenses whereby it stated in its Fifth affirmative defense, “Moreover, the Defendant has reasonable proof that the claimant was not involved in a motor vehicle accident as the claimant does not appear on the police report.”
2) Defendant served on Plaintiff a Proposal for Settlement in the amount of S100.00 on or about November 17, 2008.
3) Plaintiff did not accept Defendant’s Proposal for Settlement within 30 days, thereby rejecting said Proposal for Settlement.
4) On October 11, 2012, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal.
5) On October 23, 2012, Defendant filed it motion for entitlement to fees and costs,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
“Upon motion made by the offeror within 30 days after the entry of judgment or after voluntary or involuntary dismissal, the court shall determine the following: a) If a defendant serves an offer which is not accepted by the plaintiff, and if the judgment obtained by the plaintiff is at least 25 percent less than the amount of the offer, the defendant shall be awarded reasonable costs, including investigative expenses, and attorney’s fees. . .” F.S. Section 768.79(6), Florida Statues (2013).

The Plaintiff argues that its notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice should not be considered a judgment in determining application to the above-referenced statute. This Honorable court respectfully disagrees and finds a dismissal with prejudice a basis for judgment of no liability. In MX Investments, Inc. v. Crawford, the Florida Supreme Court held, “we conclude that to be entitled to an award of attorney fees under section 768.79, Florida Statutes (1991), there must be a dismissal with prejudice of the cause of action.” 700 So. 2d 640 at 642. (Fla. 1997) [22 Fla. L. Weekly S530a].
Additionally, Plaintiff argues Defendant’s offer was nominal and not made in good faith. However, “the obligation of good faith merely requires that the offeror have a reasonable foundation on which to base the offer; it does not demand that the offeror possess, at the time such person makes the offer, the kind or quantum of evidence need to support a judgment.” Donohoe v. Starmed Staffing, Inc. 743 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)[24 Fla. L. Weekly D2419a]. Good faith is, by its very nature, determined by the subjective motivations and beliefs of the pertinent actor; as long as the offeror has a basis in known or reasonably believed fact to conclude the offer is justifiable, the good faith requirement has been satisfied.” Dept. of Hwy Safety & Motor Vehicles, Florida Hwy Patrol v. Weinstein, 747 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)[24 Fla. L. Weekly D2799b].
In the instant case, the Plaintiff had not been listed as a passenger on the police report. “The absence of information in such written crash reports regarding the existence of passengers in the vehicles involved in the crash constitutes a rebuttable presumption that no such passengers were involved in the reported crash.” Section 316.068, Florida Statutes (2008). The Defendant had a reasonable foundation upon which to base its offer as it possessed the subjective justifiable belief that its exposure to liability was nominal. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant is entitled to fees and costs.

* * *

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982