39 Fla. L. Weekly D877a
Attorney’s fees — Proposal for settlement — Error to award
attorney’s fees pursuant to proposal for settlement where proposal did not state
the amount and terms attributable to each defendant
5th District. Case No. 5D13-2070. Opinion filed April 25, 2014. Appeal from the
Circuit Court for Hernando County, Richard Tombrink, Jr., Judge. Counsel:
Anthony J. Russo and Jared M. Krukar of Butler Pappas Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP,
Tampa, and Emory Wood of J. Emory Wood, P.A., St. Petersburg, for Appellants.
Laura H. Howard and Michael C. Addison of Addison & Howard, P.A., Tampa, for
on a proposal for settlement. Because the proposal failed to comply with the
rule in effect at the time it was served, we reverse.
Appellants. The proposal did not state the amount and terms attributable to each
Appellant. At the time of the proposal, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure
1.442(c)(3) (2010), required that a proposal state the amount and terms
attributable to each party but did not yet provide an exception to such rule
with respect to a party that is alleged to be solely vicariously liable.
Appellants did not accept Appellee’s settlement proposal, and after a trial, the
jury returned a verdict in favor of Appellee in the amount of $281,296.23.
Appellee then moved for attorney’s fees under section 768.79, Florida Statutes
(2010). Appellants objected, arguing that, as a result of Appellee’s failure to
comply with rule 1.442(c)(3), the proposal for settlement was invalid. The trial
court rejected Appellants’ argument and awarded Appellee attorney’s fees in the
amount of $162,400. Appellants appeal this attorney’s fee award.
462 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).
* * *