22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 132b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2201LAHEInsurance — Attorney’s fees — Proposal for settlement — Enlargement of time for response
TOTAL INJURY CHIROPRACTIC LLC, a/a/o JEAN CLAUDE LAHENS, Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, County Civil Division. Case No. 2013SC011021, Division ‘RL’. May 22, 2014. Robert Panse, Judge.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT’S PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT SERVED MARCH 26, 2014
THIS MATTER came before the Court upon the Plaintiff’s “Motion to Enlarge Time to Respond to Defendant’s Proposal for Settlement Served March 26, 2014.” This Court having heard argument of counsel and otherwise being fully advised of the premises therein, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Plaintiff’s “Motion to Enlarge Time to Respond to Defendant’s Proposal for Settlement Served March 26, 2014” is hereby GRANTED.
Rule 1.442, Fla. R. Civ. P. is the procedural mechanism to implement an offer made pursuant to §768.79, Fla. Stat. The Plaintiff, in this case served a proposal for settlement made pursuant to both Rule 1.442, Fla. R. Civ. P. and §768.79, Fla. Stat.
Pursuant to 1.090 (b), Fla. R. Civ. P. “when an act is required or allowed to be done at or within a specified time by order of Court, by these rules or by notice given thereunder, for cause shown the Court at any time in its discretion. . . may order the period enlarged”. Rule 1.090 (b), excludes the applicability of said rule to certain other specified Rules of Civil Procedure. Noteworthy, Rule 1.442, Fla. R. Civ. P. is not one of those rules specified for the non-applicability of Rule 1.090 (b), Fla. R. Civ. P. Appellate Courts have specifically found that with regard to proposals for settlement, trial courts have the discretion to enlarge the time for a party to respond to a proposal for settlement. See Schmidt v. Fortner, 629 So.2d 1036 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Goldy v. Corbett Crane Services, Inc. 692 So.2d 225 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) [22 Fla. L. Weekly D927e]. Furthermore, as the time to respond is procedural in nature, the Court does not find the enlargement of the time to respond to the proposal for settlement to be inconsistent with the substantive components of Rule 1.442.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the time for the Plaintiff to accept or reject the Defendant’s proposal for settlement shall be extended until twenty (20) days after the completion of the pre-litigation adjuster’s deposition.
* * *
