Entry of Final Summary Judgment Will Terminate Ability to Accept Pending Proposal for Settlement

By Karma Hall, Esq.

 In Kroener v. Florida Insurance Guaranty Association, Case Nos. 4D09-3604 & 4D09-4102 (Fla. 4th DCA June 22, 2011), Florida’s Fourth DCA was called upon to decide, as a matter of first impression in Florida, whether entry of final summary judgment would preclude a party’s ability to accept a pending proposal for settlement.

In the underlying litigation, the trial court granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment on several theories, one of which had not been previously considered in Florida. The issue of whether a party may accept a pending proposal for settlement after entry of final summary judgment arose after the undisputed facts revealed that the insurer had served a proposal for settlement to the insureds on June 9, 2009, one day prior to a hearing on the carrier’s motion for summary judgment. On June 10, 2009, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer, and final judgment was entered on June 18, 2009. On June 22, 2009, the insureds submitted correspondence to the insurer’s counsel indicating that they accepted the carrier’s proposal for settlement. The insureds moved to compel enforcement of the proposal for settlement. The trial court denied that motion, ruling that the entry of final summary judgment terminated the insureds’ ability to accept the proposal for settlement.

The insureds’ argument was based on the language of Fla. Stat. § 768.79 and Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442. Fla Stat. § 768.79(4) provides:

An offer shall be accepted by filing a written acceptance with the court within 30 days after service. Upon filing of both the offer and acceptance, the court has full jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.

Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442(f)(1) provides:

A proposal shall be deemed rejected unless accepted by delivery of a written notice of acceptance within 30 days after service of the proposal. The provisions of rule 1.090(e) do not apply to this subdivision. No oral communications shall constitute an acceptance, rejection, or counteroffer under the provisions of this rule.

The insureds argued that because neither the statute nor the rule addressed nor shortened the time for acceptance in relation to a ruling on summary judgment, the offer was “valid and open for acceptance” for the full 30-day time period, despite the entry of summary judgment.

The trial court disagreed. In reaching its decision, the court analyzed nonbinding, persuasive case law submitted by both parties, and cited Day v. Krystal Co., 241 F.R.D 474 (E.D. Tenn. 2007), wherein the court stated:

Once a final judgment has been entered and the case is closed, any attempt to settle the case is then futile. . . . This is because when the Court entered a final judgment in favor of Defendant, the Court ended the litigation, and the need for settlement was no longer present. . . .

Summary judgment serves the same purpose as a determination after trial. It concludes the case unless there are outstanding parties or issues. Treating summary judgment the same as a judgment entered after trial reconciles all the rules and is in keeping with the goals of finality in litigation.
The Kroener trial court agreed, and the appellate court affirmed, noting that under established Florida law, a party may not accept a pending proposal for settlement after trial has commenced or a verdict has been announced because “it would frustrate the purpose of Rule 1.442 to encourage settlement, obviate the necessity of protracted litigation, and ‘totally defeat the ends of justice and allow a mockery of the judicial system.’”

Click to view full opinion

Do you have property damage and need assistance? 

The Law Office of Karma Hall, PA provides legal services throughout Florida, main office in Miami.  Visit us online: www.karmahallpa.com;  email info@karmahallpa.com.

x

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Nominal Proposals for Settlement are Held Valid Where the Offeror Has a Reasonable Basis to Believe that Exposure to Liability is Minimal

By Karma Hall, Esq. On May 31, 2017, Florida's 1st DCA was asked to resolved alleged inconsistencies in prior holdings involving the question of whether a nominal proposal for settlement offer can be made in good faith. In Taylor Eng'g, Inc. v. Dickerson Fla., Inc. , Case No. 1D15-4782 (Fla. 1st DCA May 31, 2017), the Appellee, Dickerson, argued that the Taylor's proposal for settlement was a nominal offer that was not made in good faith, and for this reason the trial court should disallow an award of costs and attorneys' fees. To support his argument, Dickerson pointed to § 768.79(7)(a), Fla. Stat., which provides: If a party is entitled to costs and fees pursuant to the provisions of this section, the court may, in its discretion, determine that an offer was not made in good faith. In such case, the court may disallow an award of costs and attorney’s fees. The 1st DCA disagreed it made inconsistent rulings concerning the standard in determining whether a n
Read more

Insurance Settlements: When is Payment Due?

It is a common misconception in Florida that insurance settlement checks are due 20 days after an insured submits an executed release. Florida Statute 627.4265 states:  627.4265 Payment of settlement.—In any case in which a person and an insurer have agreed in writing to the settlement of a claim, the insurer shall tender payment according to the terms of the agreement no later than 20 days after such settlement is reached . The tender of payment may be conditioned upon execution by such person of a release mutually agreeable to the insurer and the claimant, but if the payment is not tendered within 20 days, or such other date as the agreement may provide, it shall bear interest at a rate of 12 percent per year from the date of the agreement ; however, if the tender of payment is conditioned upon the execution of a release, the interest shall not begin to accrue until the executed release is tendered to the insurer. This statute makes clear that, where a writt
Read more

Construction Lien Case Holding: Where both Parties Prevail on Significant Issues, Neither Party Recovers Appellate Attorney's Fees

Image
By Karma Hall, Esq.  In the decision of Bauer v. Ready Windows Sales & Services Corporation , Case No.: 3D16-1171 (Fla. 3d DCA June 21, 2017), Florida's Third District Court of Appeals was tasked with reviewing entitlement to appellate attorney's fees claimed by both parties, where both parties had filed competing motions seeking recovery of appellate attorney's fees pursuant to Rule 9.400 and section 713.29, each taking the position that they were the prevailing party after each having won on some issues but having lost on other issues. Florida's Third District Court of Appeals denied the motions for appellate attorney's fees as to both parties. The 3rd DCA held while both parties prevailed on significant issues, neither party would recover appellate attorney's fees. Here, each party lost on their appeal, while each party successfully defended that part of the judgment in their favor on the other party’s cross-appeal. As support for its finding, the
Read more