22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 967a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2208KLEMInsurance — Personal injury protection — Proposal for settlement — Declaratory actions — Monetary proposal for settlement directed to action that seeks declaration as to available PIP coverage and does not seek money damages is invalid — Motion to strike is granted
RAYMOND D. CLITES, DC, PA a/a/o McKenzie Klemkosky, Plaintiff, v. USAA GENERAL IND. CO., Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. 14-12963 COCE 52. February 23, 2015. Giuseppina Miranda, Judge. Counsel: Russel Lazega, Florida Advocates, Dania Beach, for Plaintiff. Scott Dutton, Dutton Law Group, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TOSTRIKE PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT
THIS CAUSE came before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Proposal for Settlement and the court, having heard argument and being otherwise advised in the matter hereby finds as follows:
FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
This is an Action for Declaratory Relief brought with regards to the question of whether the available PIP coverage in the instant case is up to a limit of $10,000.00 or whether the coverage is limited to $2,500.00. The action does not claim money damages but requests a determination from the court as to the amount of available insurance coverage as well as attorney’s fees and costs for the action. Plaintiff has moved to strike the Defendant’s proposal for settlement asserting that a proposal for settlement is improper in a declaratory action where the relief sought is a declaration as opposed to money damages. Defendant responds that the ultimately the real underlying issue or motivation behind the suit is money and therefore the proposal for settlement should stand.
CONCLUSION OF LAW:
The court agrees with the Plaintiff that a monetary proposal for settlement directed to an action for declaratory relief that does not make a claim for specific money damages is invalid. Palm Beach Polo Holdings, Inc. v. Equestrian Club Estates Property Owner’s Association, Inc., 22 So. 3d 140 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) [34 Fla. L. Weekly D2394a] (“Because the proposals for settlement addressed a complaint that included non-damages claims, they do not comply with the statute, and we find them invalid. . .”).
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s Proposal for Settlement is hereby STRICKEN.
* * *
