24 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 760a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2409REGOAttorney’s fees — Proposal for settlement that included offer of attorney’s fees but failed to state whether attorney’s fees were part of plaintiff’s legal claim did not strictly comply with rule 1.442 and is, therefore, invalid and unenforceable
MULTICARE REHABILITATION, LLC a/a/o Robert Rego, Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. 14-022054 COCE 50. July 22, 2016. Peter B. Skolnik, Judge. Counsel: Howard W. Myones, Law Offices of Anidjar & Levine PIP Litigation, Fort Lauderdale, for Plaintiff. Erick Martin and Kevin Sincerbox, Fort Lauderdale, for Defendant.
REVERSED. FLWSUPP 2703REGO
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S SECOND MOTION FORENTITLEMENT AND MOTION TO TAX ATTORNEY’SFEES AND COSTS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW INSUPPORT THEREOF
THIS CAUSE, having come before the Court, regarding Defendant’s Second Motion for Entitlement and Motion to Tax Attorney’s Fees and Costs and Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof, and the Court having reviewed the motion, the entire Court file, and all relevant legal authorities, and otherwise having been fully advised in the premises, the Court finds as follows:
It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED the same is hereby:
DENIED as to Attorney Fees1.
Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1.442(c)(2) states that a proposal shall:
. . .
(B) state that the proposal resolves all damages that would otherwise be awarded in a final judgment in the action in which the proposal is served, subject to subdivision (F);
. . .
(F) state whether the proposal includes attorney’s fees and whether attorneys’ fee are part of the legal claim.
A proposal that makes an offer of attorney’s fees but fails to state whether attorney’s fees are part of the legal claim satisfies only half of Rule 1.442(c)(2)(F)’s requirements and is therefore invalid and unenforceable because it fails to strictly comply with Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1.442. See Diamond Aircraft Industries, Inc. v. Horowitch, 107 So.3d 362, 377 (Fla. 2013) [38 Fla. L. Weekly S45a]; Deer Valley Realty, Inc. v. SB Hotel Associates, LLC, 190 So.3d 203, 207 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) [41 Fla. L. Weekly D1036a]. In the instant case, Progressive’s Proposal for Settlement made an offer for attorneys fees and costs but failed to state whether or not attorneys fees were part of the Plaintiff’s legal claim. Therefore, Progressive’s Proposal for Settlement failed to strictly comply with Rule 1.442(c)(2)(F) and is invalid and unenforceable.
__________________
1An Agreed Order regarding Defendant’s Entitlement to Costs as the prevailing party was previously entered on 7/21/16 and remains in full force and effect.
