11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 445a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Small claims — Attorney’s fees — Proposal for settlement — Motion to strike proposal for settlement filed pursuant to section 768.79 in small claims PIP action is denied — Court is bound by district court decision holding that section 768.79 applies to cases brought pursuant to section 627.736 and applies to cases pending in Small Claims Court
LAURA ANN FOYT, Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 4th Judicial Circuit in and for Clay County. Case No. 2003-1923-SC D. March 12, 2004, nunc pro tunc March 9, 2004. Richard R. Townsend, Judge. Counsel: David G. Candelaria, Farah, Farah & Abbott, P.A., Jacksonville, for Plaintiff. Ellen C. Pappas, McFarlain & Cassedy, P.A., Tallahassee, for Defendant.
AMENDED ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT
This cause came on to be heard upon the Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike the Defendant’s Proposal for Settlement made pursuant to §768.79, Florida Statutes, and the Court having considered argument of Counsel, makes the following conclusions of law:
1. §768.79, Florida Statutes, applies to cases brought pursuant to §627.736, Florida Statutes.
2. §768.79, Florida Statutes applies to cases pending in Small Claims Court.
3. The Complaint filed herein is brought pursuant to §627.736, Florida Statutes, and is currently pending in Small Claims Court.
4. Therefore, this Court is bound by the decision of Tran vs. State Farm Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, 860 So. 2d 1000 (1st DCA 2003), wherein the First District held that §768.79, Florida Statutes, applies to cases brought pursuant to §627.736, Florida Statutes, and applies to cases pending in Small Claims Court.
It is upon due consideration,
ORDERED:
1. The Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike the Defendant’s Proposal for Settlement pursuant to §768.79, Florida Statutes, is denied.
2. The Plaintiff’s ore tenus Motion to Stay these proceedings until the Supreme Court resolves the certified question from the First District Court of Appeal is denied.
3. The Plaintiff’s Motion to Enlarge the Time to Respond to the proposal for settlement is granted, and the Plaintiff has an additional thirty (30) days from the date hereof to respond.
* * *
