22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 132b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2201LAHE
Insurance — Attorney’s fees — Proposal for settlement — Enlargement of
time for response
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
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
to Defendant’s Proposal for Settlement Served March 26, 2014” is hereby GRANTED.
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.
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
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.
* * *