22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 788a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2207DIETInsurance — Personal injury protection — Attorney’s fees — Proposal for settlement that allocates half of proposed settlement amount to PIP claim and half to attorney’s fees was not invalid joint offer — Error to deny motion for entitlement to attorney’s fees and costs
UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. EL PORTAL MEDICAL, INC., a/a/o Sherline A. Dietrich, Appellee. Circuit Court, 11th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 11-337 AP. L.T. Case No. 03-14018 SP 05. January 20, 2015. Counsel: Michael J. Neimand, for Appellant. Stuart B. Yanofsky, for Appellee.
(Before RUIZ COHEN, MIRANDA, and VERDE, JJ.)
(PER CURIAM.) On March 6, 2009, Appellant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Also on March 6, 2009, Appellant filed its Notice of Serving Proposal for Settlement. The proposal specifically allocates half ($250) of the proposed settlement amount for the PIP claim and the other half ($250) for attorney’s fees and costs. On January 11, 2010, the trial court granted Appellant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. On January 19, 2010, Appellant filed a Motion for Entitlement of Attorney’s Fees and Costs, alleging it was entitled to fees based on its proposal for settlement. At the hearing on the motion, Appellee argued Appellant was not entitled to fees because the proposal was an invalid joint offer. See Attorneys’ Title Ins. Fund, Inc. v. Gorka, 36 So. 3d 646 (2010) [35 Fla. L. Weekly S196a] (joint proposal that is conditioned on the mutual acceptance of all of the joint offerees is invalid and unenforceable for purposes of imposing attorney fees pursuant to offer of judgment statute). The trial court denied Appellant’s motion on June 1, 2011.
Appellant’s proposal was not a joint offer. A joint offer states the amount and terms attributable to each party. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442(c)(3) (emphasis added). This case has one plaintiff and one defendant. Breaking up the proposed settlement amount in this manner had no legal effect. The proposal is valid; therefore, Appellant is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs.
The Court reverses the trial court’s order, dated June 1, 2011, denying Appellant’s Motion for Entitlement of Attorney’s Fees and Costs. The case is remanded to the trial court so it may grant Appellant’s motion and hold a fee hearing.
* * *
