Not able to view email? View it in your browser.
Fall 2012
IN THIS ISSUE
d&G Lawyer News

  • Changes to Offer of Judgment Rule Regarding Joint Offers

    • By: Kristin K. Morris

    An offer of judgment also known as a proposal for settlement can be an effective tool to increase recoveries or encourage settlement in many different types of civil litigation. The Supreme Court has changed the offer of judgment rule as it relates to joint offers to or from defendants where one of the defendants is alleged to be solely vicariously liable for the other. Florida Statutes Section 768.79 and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442 govern offers of judgment. The statute provides that the offering party is entitled to recover reasonable costs and attorney’s fees that accrue from the date of service of the offer if: (1) a valid offer is served by a party, (2) the offer is rejected by the receiving party, and (3) if the plaintiff is the offeror, the plaintiff recovers a judgment at trial that is at least 25% greater than the offer, or, if the defendant is the offeror, the defendant prevails at trial or the judgment against the defendant is at least 25% less than the amount of the defendant’s offer to the plaintiff. To be valid, an offer has to contain the specific criteria set forth in Rule 1.442 including, the names of the parties making the offer and the parties to whom the offer is being made, the identity of the claims to be resolved by the offer, the amount of the proposal and all nonmonetary terms of the proposal, any relevant conditions, the amount proposed to settle a claim for punitive damages, if any, whether the offer includes attorney’s fees and whether attorney’s fees are part of the legal claim, and, finally, the offer must include a certificate of service. Rule 1.442(c)(2).

    Prior to the recent rule change, if the proposal was a joint offer (one that is by or to any combination of parties), the offer had to state the amount and terms attributable to each party, regardless of the relationship between the defendants. Rule 1.442(c)(3). Effective January 1, 2011, if a defendant is alleged to be solely vicariously, constructively, derivatively, or technically liable, a joint proposal made by or served on such a defendant need not state the apportionment or contribution as to that defendant. Rule 1.442(c)(4). This rule change supersedes the Supreme Court’s decision in Lamb v. Matetzschk, 906 So.2d 1037 (Fla. 2005), which held that a joint offer is invalid it fails to apportion the offer between the defendants even where one’s liability is solely vicarious. Id. at 1038.

    If de la parte & Gilbert, P.A. can help answer and address any questions or concerns you may have concerning this issue, please contact Kristin Morris at kmorris@dgfirm.com with your inquiries.
    101 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 2000 | Tampa, FL 33602 | 813-229-2775 Fax: 813-229-2712
    Email: info@dgfirm.com | Site: www.dgfirm.com
    If you’d like, you can unsubscribe from this Newsletter, Click Here.