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
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

October 24, 2014 by admin

Trial Court Order granting motion for extension of time to respond to Offer of Judgment / Proposal for Settlement

22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 132b

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2201LAHE

Insurance — Attorney’s fees — Proposal for settlement — Enlargement of
time for response

TOTAL INJURY CHIROPRACTIC LLC, a/a/o JEAN CLAUDE LAHENS, Plaintiff, v.
PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 15th Judicial
Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, County Civil Division. Case No.
2013SC011021, Division ‘RL’. May 22, 2014. Robert Panse, Judge.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

ENLARGE TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT’S

PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT SERVED MARCH 26, 2014


THIS MATTER came before the Court upon the Plaintiff’s “Motion to Enlarge
Time to Respond to Defendant’s Proposal for Settlement Served March 26, 2014.”
This Court having heard argument of counsel and otherwise being fully advised of
the premises therein, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Plaintiff’s “Motion to Enlarge Time to Respond
to Defendant’s Proposal for Settlement Served March 26, 2014” is hereby GRANTED.
Rule 1.442, Fla. R. Civ. P. is the procedural mechanism to implement an offer
made pursuant to §768.79, Fla. Stat. The Plaintiff, in this case served a
proposal for settlement made pursuant to both Rule 1.442, Fla. R. Civ. P. and
§768.79, Fla. Stat.
Pursuant to 1.090 (b), Fla. R. Civ. P. “when an act is required or allowed to
be done at or within a specified time by order of Court, by these rules or by
notice given thereunder, for cause shown the Court at any time in its
discretion. . . may order the period enlarged”. Rule 1.090 (b), excludes the
applicability of said rule to certain other specified Rules of Civil Procedure.
Noteworthy, Rule 1.442, Fla. R. Civ. P. is not one of those rules specified for
the non-applicability of Rule 1.090 (b), Fla. R. Civ. P. Appellate Courts have
specifically found that with regard to proposals for settlement, trial courts
have the discretion to enlarge the time for a party to respond to a proposal for
settlement. See Schmidt v. Fortner, 629 So.2d 1036 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993);
Goldy v. Corbett Crane Services, Inc. 692 So.2d 225 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
[22 Fla. L. Weekly D927e]. Furthermore, as the time to respond is procedural in
nature, the Court does not find the enlargement of the time to respond to the
proposal for settlement to be inconsistent with the substantive components of
Rule 1.442.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the time for the Plaintiff to accept
or reject the Defendant’s proposal for settlement shall be extended until twenty
(20) days after the completion of the pre-litigation adjuster’s deposition.

* * *

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Attorney’s fees — Prevailing party — Appeal from order awarding attorney’s fees and costs and attorney’s fees for fees incurred in litigating amount of fees reversed in light of appellate court’s reversal of substantive portion of summary judgment on which awards were based and remand with instructions — Reversal is without prejudice to filing new appeal after trial court has concluded its labor
  • Insurance — Property — Insured’s action against insurer — Error to enter summary judgment in favor of insurer where there were factual issues as to insured’s compliance with post-loss obligations and any ensuing prejudice — Remand for further proceedings
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Assignee’s breach of contract action against insurer — Attorney’s fees — Prevailing party — Insurer was not entitled to summary judgment in its favor after paying post-lawsuit appraisal award within time limit required by the policy where appraisal process confirmed that insurer had wrongly denied paying assignee a specified amount of benefits under the policy — Payment of postsuit appraisal award did not render case moot — Remand for further proceedings on assignee’s claim for attorney’s fees and costs
  • Civil procedure — Summary judgment — Failure to state on the record the reasons for granting motion for summary judgment, as required by amended rule — Remand to allow court an opportunity to state reasons for its decision “with enough specificity to provide useful guidance to the parties and, if necessary, to allow for appellate review”
  • Insurance — Personal injury protection — Presuit demand letter — Presuit demand letter did not comply with statute where amount claimed to be due was not sufficiently precise — Although letter asked insurer to advise plaintiff if demand letter was defective in any way, nothing in language of section 627.736 requires an insurer to give notice to the insured or an assignee that a demand letter is defective

Blog Archives

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. Abbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2022 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982