11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 563b
Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Small claims — Proposal for settlement — Motion to strike proposal for settlement in small claims PIP action is denied — Issue of whether proposal bears reasonable relationship to what is owed is not yet ripe
Occupational and Rehabilitation Center, as assignee of David Helton, Plaintiff(s), vs. Progressive Auto Pro Insurance, Co., Defendant(s). County Court, 4th Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County. Case No. 16-2003-SC-10876-XXXX. Division M. March 30, 2004. Mallory D. Cooper, Judge. Counsel: David Candelaria, Farah, Farah & Abbott, P.A., Jacksonville, for Plaintiff. Ellen Pappas, McFarlain & Cassedy, P.A., Tallahassee, for Defendant.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT
THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Proposal for Settlement, pursuant to Florida Statute §768.79 and the Court having heard the argument of counsel, having reviewed the relevant Rules and Statutes and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is
ORDERED and ADJUDGED:
1. Despite the fact neither party moved to invoke the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, and despite the fact this is a Small Claims case which means the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply, this Court is compelled to Deny the Plaintiff’s Motion as it relates to the application of Florida Statute §768.79 and Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.442 based on the First District Court of Appeals case of Tran v. State Farm, 28 Fla. L. Weekly, D2471a (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).
2. The Court reserves ruling on the Defendant’s allegation that the proposal for settlement does not bear a reasonable relationship to what is owed, as that issue is not ripe at this time.
3. Defendant’s Motion to Enlarge Time to Respond to Proposal is Granted only to the extent that Defendant has thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to respond.
* * *
