fbpx

Case Search

Please select a category.

ORTHOPEDIC REHAB SPECIALTY CLINIC, INC., As Assignee of Soojin Kwon, Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 126a

Small claims — Insurance — Proposal for settlement — Applicability of Rule 1.442, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, to small claims actions

ORTHOPEDIC REHAB SPECIALTY CLINIC, INC., As Assignee of Soojin Kwon, Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 4th Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County. Case No. 16-2001-SC-7288-XXXX-MA. Division N. April 21, 2003. Gary P. Flower, Judge. Counsel: D. Scott Craig, Jacksonville. Robert A. Kingsford, Maitland.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO APPLY RULE 1.442, FLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard upon the Defendant’s Motion To Invoke The Rules Of Civil Procedure, and the Court being advised by counsel for the Plaintiff that they have no objection to invoking the Rules of Civil Procedure with the exception of Rule 1.442, Fla.R.Civ.P., and the Court having heard argument of counsel regarding the disputed Rule and having reviewed the case law provided, the Court finds as follows:

A. The instant case is a case brought in Duval County, Florida, as a small claims case and, thus, is generally governed by the Small Claims Rules.

B. Rule 7.020(a) Fla.SM.CL.R. specifically gives this Court the discretion to order that the parties proceed under one (1) or more additional Rules of Civil Procedure (emphasis added), which would include Rule 1.442, Fla. R. Civ. P.

C. Clearly, the rules not mentioned in Rule 7.020 were not intended to be applied to small claims actions.

D. The Court has reviewed the case cited by the Defendant, to wit: U.S. Security Insurance Co. v. Cahuasqui, 760 So.2d 1101 (Fla. 3rd DCA, July 5, 2000), and finds that it was not a small claims case and, thus, does not mandate the application of Rule 1.442, Fla.R.Civ.P. to Small Claims Actions.

E. Simply stated, small claims cases are governed by separate rules in order to expedite the process and while the underlying purpose of the Offer of Judgment Statute includes early termination of litigation by encouraging realistic assessments of the claims made, in the Court’s opinion it would not help to expedite the process of small claims cases.

Based on the foregoing, it is therefore:

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Defendant’s Motion to Apply Rule 1.442, Fla. R. Civ. P. is hereby DENIED.

* * *

Skip to content