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

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

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