23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 340a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2304REEDInsurance — Personal injury protection — Proposal for settlement — Trial court does not have authority to force insurer to afford medical provider additional time to respond to proposal for settlement
LAKE SHORE HMA, LLC, d/b/a SHANDS LAKE SHORE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, (Patient: Michael R. Reed), Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. County Court, 3rd Judicial Circuit in and for Columbia County. Case No. 13-1057-SC. January 9, 2015. Honorable Tom Coleman, Judge. Counsel: Rinaman & Associates, P.A., Jacksonville, for Defendant.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONFOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO RESPONDTO PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT
THIS CAUSE came before the Court at the December 11, 2014, hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to Proposal for Settlement, and it appearing that good and sufficient grounds have been shown for DENYING the Plaintiff’s Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to Proposal for Settlement. The Court being otherwise fully advised in the premises it is Ordered and Adjudged as follows:
1. Plaintiff brought this Personal Injury Protection (“PIP”) action against Defendant on August 7, 2012 for purportedly underpaid PIP benefits for date of service September 23, 2011 in small claims court. Plaintiff also attempted to initiate discovery with service of process in violation of the Florida Small Claims Rules, Rule 7.020(b).
2. On November 1, 2012, the parties entered into a Stipulation and Agreed Order Waiving Appearance at Pre-Trial Conference and Invoking the Rules of Civil Procedure.
3. On September 30, 2014, Defendant filed a Notice of Proposal for Settlement, and served the Proposal for Settlement on the Plaintiff pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1.442 and Florida Statute §768.79. Defendant was under no obligation either pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, the Florida Statutes, or the applicable policy to make a Proposal for Settlement to the Plaintiff.
4. On October 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed the Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to the Proposal for Settlement.
5. Rule 1.442 only allows for acceptance or rejection of the offer: “A proposal shall be deemed rejected unless accepted by delivery of a written notice of acceptance within 30 days after service of the proposal.” There is no other response applicable here, including, a request for an enlargement of time.
6. The Florida Supreme Court has stated in Campbell v. Goldman, 959 So. 2d 223, 227 (Fla. 2007) [32 Fla. L. Weekly S320a] that “Section 768.79 provides a sanction against a party who unreasonably rejects a settlement offer . . . Because the overall subject is in derogation of the common law, all portions must be strictly construed.” Therefore, no additional time should be granted outside the 30 days granted in the rule itself.
7. Further, the Florida Supreme Court has stated that one of the effects of Rule 1.442, Fla. R. Civ. P., is to “facilitate more settlements and less litigation.” Willis Shaw Express, Inc. v. Hilyer Sod, Inc., 849 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 2003) [28 Fla. L. Weekly S225a](citations omitted). Allowing Plaintiff to complete discovery before addressing State Farm’s Proposal for Settlement is contrary to the purpose of the rule, which is to settle cases and “obviate the need for further intervention of the judicial process.” MGR Equipment Corp., Inc. v. Wilson Ice Enterprises, 731 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 1999) [24 Fla. L. Weekly S142a].
8. The only discretion the court is given in reviewing the Proposal for Settlement is “whether the qualifying offer was made in good faith, and whether the amount of fees awarded was reasonable.” Grip Development, Inc. v. Coldwell Banker Residential Real Estate, Inc., 788 So. 2d 262, 264. Therefore, the court does not have discretion to force the offeror to leave the offer for Proposal for Settlement open longer than thirty (30) days.
9. The Plaintiff cites to Goldy v. Corbett Cranes Services, Inc. 692 So. 2d (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) [22 Fla. L. Weekly D927e]; however, the distinguishing factor in Goldy, is that the plaintiff/offeror amended the complaint adding additional counts after making an offer pursuant to Rule 1.442, and only withdrew the offer once he had already granted an extension of time. In this case, none of the facts changed between State Farm’s Proposal for Settlement and Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time, whereas in Goldy the plaintiff/offeror granted an extension after he amended the Complaint, to allow the defendant/offeree to apparently re-evaluate his case. Here, Plaintiff brought suit, and the facts in the Complaint have not been amended since the original filing. There is no good reason or good cause given to circumvent the strict reading of the statute and force State Farm to further litigate the lawsuit when it can be extinguished now. To allow further discovery in this case will only increases costs and attorney’s fees for the Defendant, with no recourse of the punitive arm of Rule 1.442 and Fla. Stat. §768.79.
10. If the Plaintiff, at the end of discovery, finds in its best interests to settle the case, they may file their own Proposal for Settlement under Rule 1.442 and Fla. Stat. §768.79; Plaintiff may even file a Proposal for Settlement in the same amount, which the Defendant may evaluate and accept within the same thirty (30) day period described under the Rule 1.442 and Fla. Stat. §768.79.
11. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to Defendant’s Proposal for settlement is DENIED.
