11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 834a
Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Proposal for settlement which was filed with court concurrently with service on plaintiff, in violation of section 768.79(3) and rule 1.442(d), is unenforceable
MIAMI-DADE MRI, INC., a/a/o Antonio del Toro, Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Civil Division. Case No. 02-13009 SP-25 (2). December 29, 2003. Mercedes A. Bach, Judge. Counsel: Dennis A. Donet, Garcia-Vidal & Donet, L.L.P., Coral Gables, for Plaintiff. Maury L. Udell, Marlow, Connell, Valerius, et al., for Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TAX ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS
THIS CAUSE came on to be heard before me, the undersigned Judge of the above entitled Court, upon the Defendant’s Motion to Tax Attorney’s Fees and Costs pursuant to Fla. Stat. §768.79, and Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442; and the Court having reviewed said Motion; having heard argument of counsel for the respective parties; andbeing otherwise fully advised in the premises, the Court makes the following,
FINDINGS OF FACT:
A. Defendant’s Proposal for Settlement dated April 7, 2003, was served upon Plaintiff via facsimile and United States mail.
B. Defendant’s original Proposal for Settlement dated April 7, 2003, was also concurrently filed with the Court in violation of Fla. Stat. 768.79(3), and Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442(d).
Therefore, it is, upon consideration,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
C. That Defendant’s Motion to Tax Attorney’s Feesand Costs be, and the same ishereby denied.
D. That Defendant’s Proposal for Settlement dated April 7, 2003, be and the same is hereby deemed unenforceable for failure to comply with the requirements of Fla. Stat. 768.79(3), and Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442(d).
* * *
