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.

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.