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

February 23, 2018 by admin

Insurance — Attorney’s fees — Proposal for settlement — Where trial court had entered summary judgment for insurer in insured’s action alleging breach of insurance contract on basis that claimed loss was not covered under policy, it was an abuse of discretion to deny insurer’s motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to offer of judgment statute on ground that insurer’s nominal proposal for settlement was not made in good faith

43 Fla. L. Weekly
D395a

Top of Form
Insurance
— Attorney’s fees — Proposal for settlement — Where trial court had entered
summary judgment for insurer in insured’s action alleging breach of insurance
contract on basis that claimed loss was not covered under policy, it was an
abuse of discretion to deny insurer’s motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to
offer of judgment statute on ground that insurer’s nominal proposal for
settlement was not made in good faith — Insurer had a reasonable basis at the
time of the proposal to conclude that its exposure was nominal

MOUNT VERNON FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. NEW MOON
MANAGEMENT, INC., a/k/a NEW MOON MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Appellee. 3rd District.
Case No. 3D16-2243. L.T. Case No. 13-886-K. Opinion filed February 14, 2018. An
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Mark H. Jones, Judge. Counsel:
Fowler White Burnett, P.A., and Esther E. Galicia, for appellant. Garcia Law
Firm, Trial Attorneys, and Nathalia A. Mellies, for appellee.
(Before ROTHENBERG, C.J., and EMAS and LUCK, JJ.)
(ROTHENBERG, C.J.) The defendant below, Mount Vernon Fire
Insurance Company (“Mount Vernon”), appeals the denial of its amended motion
for entitlement to attorney’s fees and costs (“amended motion for entitlement”)
filed pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2015), and Florida Rule of
Civil Procedure 1.442, which was based on the trial court’s finding that Mount
Vernon’s nominal proposal for settlement to its insured, New Moon Management,
Inc., etc. (“New Moon”), was not made in good faith. Because we conclude that
the trial court abused its discretion by finding that Mount Vernon’s proposal
for settlement was not made in good faith, see State Farm Fla. Ins.
Co. v. Laughlin-Alfonso
, 118 So. 3d 314, 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (“The abuse
of discretion standard of review governs this Court’s review of a trial court’s
determination that a proposal for settlement was not made in good faith.”), we
reverse the order under review and remand for the entry of an order granting
Mount Vernon’s amended motion for entitlement.
Mount Vernon issued a commercial property and general
liability policy to New Moon. Following heavy rains in August 2008, New Moon
filed a claim under the policy for water damage. Later that year, after
obtaining a roof damage report from a structural engineer, Mount Vernon denied
the claim based on exclusions and limitations in the insurance policy.
In August 2013, New Moon filed a complaint against Mount
Vernon, asserting claims for breach of the insurance contract and bad faith.
After nearly two years of extensive discovery, on July 2, 2015, Mount Vernon
served a nominal proposal for settlement ($1,000) on New Moon pursuant to rule
1.442 and section 768.79.
Within a week of serving its proposal for settlement, Mount
Vernon filed a motion for final summary judgment, asserting that the damage was
not covered under the terms of the policy. Following a hearing, the trial court
granted Mount Vernon’s motion for summary judgment. Thereafter, the trial court
entered final summary judgment in favor of Mount Vernon and denied New Moon’s
motion for rehearing and motion for relief from judgment.1

Pursuant to rule 1.442 and section 768.79, Mount Vernon
filed its amended motion for entitlement based on New Moon’s failure to accept
Mount Vernon’s proposal for settlement. In response, New Moon argued that the
nominal proposal for settlement was not made in good faith because Mount Vernon
did not have a reasonable basis to offer the nominal amount.
At the hearing on the amended motion for entitlement, Mount
Vernon argued that it submitted its proposal for settlement following extensive
discovery and the taking of several depositions and, at the time it submitted
its proposal for settlement, the record reflected that there were no issues of
material fact and that Mount Vernon had a reasonable basis to conclude that it
had “no exposure, let alone nominal exposure.” The trial court reserved ruling.
Thereafter, the trial court entered an order denying Mount Vernon’s amended
motion for entitlement, finding that Mount Vernon’s nominal proposal for
settlement was not made in good faith. See § 768.79(7)(a), Fla. Stat.
(2015) (“If a party is entitled to costs and fees pursuant to the provisions of
this section, the court may, in its discretion, determine that an offer was not
made in good faith. In such case, the court may disallow an award of costs and
attorney’s fees.”). Mount Vernon’s appeal followed.
Mount Vernon contends that the trial court abused its
discretion by determining that the nominal proposal for settlement was not made
in good faith. We agree.
In addressing whether the trial court abused its discretion
by finding that Mount Vernon’s nominal proposal for settlement was not was made
in good faith, we must consider whether Mount Vernon “had a reasonable basis at
the time of the offer to conclude that [its] exposure was nominal.” Fox v.
McCaw Cellular Commc’ns of Fla., Inc.
, 745 So. 2d 330, 333 (Fla. 4th DCA
1998); see also Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, Fla.
Highway Patrol v. Weinstein
, 747 So. 2d 1019, 1021 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
(reversing the trial court’s denial of attorney’s fees, which were sought under
section 768.79, where the record conclusively demonstrates that, at the time
the nominal proposal for settlement was made, the offeror had a reasonable
basis to conclude that its exposure was nominal). Further, we recognize that
good faith is “determined by the subjective motivations and beliefs of the
pertinent actor.” Weinstein, 747 So. 2d at 1021.
In the instant case, the record reflects that Mount Vernon
made its proposal for settlement following almost two years of litigation and
extensive discovery. Further, less than a week after making its proposal for
settlement, Mount Vernon moved for summary judgment, and in doing so, relied
heavily on the investigation report issued by its claim administrator in
October 2008, the roof damage report issued by structural engineers in November
2008, and the exclusions and limitations contained in the policy. Thus, the
record conclusively demonstrates that Mount Vernon “had a reasonable basis at
the time of the offer to conclude that [its] exposure was nominal.” Fox,
745 So. 2d at 333. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court abused its
discretion by denying Mount Vernon’s amended motion for entitlement based on
the determination that the nominal proposal for settlement was not made in good
faith. We, therefore, reverse the order under review and remand for the entry
of an order granting Mount Vernon’s amended motion for entitlement.2

Reversed and remanded.
__________________
1New Moon appealed these
orders, and this Court affirmed. See New Moon Mgmt., Inc. v. Mount
Vernon Fire Ins. Co.
, 3D16-2242 (Fla. 3d DCA Dec. 27, 2017).
2In its answer brief, New
Moon also argued that the trial court’s order denying Mount Vernon’s amended
motion for entitlement should be affirmed because there was an ambiguity in the
proposal for settlement, thereby defeating its enforcement. As New Moon did not
raise this argument in the lower tribunal, the argument was not properly
preserved for appellate review. We have, therefore, not addressed this argument
on appeal.
* * *
Bottom of Form
Bottom of Form

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • 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