25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 617a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2507TAYLInsurance — Personal injury protection — Proposal for settlement — Where insurer’s proposal for settlement stated that offer for medical benefits and attorney’s fees and costs was not severable, medical provider’s attempt to accept only benefits portion of offer constituted rejection of proposal and was, instead, a counteroffer
COASTAL CARE MEDICAL CENTER, INC., D/B/A COASTAL CARE PLUS MEDICAL CENTERS, as Assignee of Thomas Taylor, Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 4th Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County. Case No. 16-2015-SC-002847-XXXX, Division CC-L. October 3, 2017. Michelle Kalil, Judge. Counsel: Ashley-Britt Hansen, Law Office of D. Scott Craig, LLC, Jacksonville, for Plaintiff. Dawn M. Carsten, Roig Lawyers, Jacksonville, for Defendant.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TOENFORCE SETTLEMENT, AND GRANTINGDEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE “PLAINTIFF’SWRITTEN NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE OFDEFENDANT’S PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENTTO PLAINTIFF AS TO BENEFITS ONLY”
This Matter came before the Court for hearing on September 27, 2017 on the Plaintiff’s “Motion to Enforce Settlement and Memorandum of Law” and on the Defendant’s “Motion to Strike ‘Plaintiff’s Written Notice of Acceptance of Defendant’s Proposal for Settlement to Plaintiff as to Benefits Only.’ ” The Court, having heard arguments from counsel, having reviewed the record and being otherwise duly advised in the premises, does hereby make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
FINDING OF FACTS
The Defendant, State Farm Automobile Insurance Company (hereinafter “State Farm”), extended Personal Injury Protection (“PIP”) benefits to Thomas Taylor in relation to a motor vehicle accident that occurred on January 10, 2011.
The Plaintiff, Coastal Care Medical Center, Inc., d/b/a Coastal Care Plus Medical Centers (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’), rendered certain medical services to Thomas Taylor as a result of this accident and submitted medical bills to State Farm for payment of this treatment. On June 09, 2015, the Plaintiff filed this breach of contract action against State Farm for allegedly overdue PIP benefits in the amount of $107.94.
On June 23, 2017, State Farm served a Proposal for Settlement to the Plaintiff pursuant to Florida Statute section 768.79. The Proposal for Settlement specifically stated in paragraph 2.D. the following: “[The written settlement proposal] [i]s subject to all the foregoing non-monetary terms/conditions, and is for a total monetary amount of Five Hundred Fifty Dollars and 00/100 ($550.00); Fifty Dollars ($50.00) represents medical benefits and interest, and Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) represents attorney’s fees and costs.” Paragraph 2.H. of the Offer of Judgment/Proposal for Settlement clearly and unambiguously specified the following: “This offer for medical benefits and for attorney fees and costs is not severable.”
On July 12, 2017, the Plaintiff filed its “Written Notice of Acceptance of Defendant’s Proposal for Settlement to Plaintiff as to Benefits Only.” The Plaintiff’s Written Notice stated the Plaintiff was partially accepting State Farm’s Proposal for Settlement only as to the $50.00 for any and all PIP benefits, and it further stated the Plaintiff was rejecting State Farm’s offer of $500.00 for attorneys’ fees and costs. A copy of State Farm’s Proposal for Settlement was attached to the Plaintiff’s Written Notice.
On July 31, 2017, State Farm filed its “Objection and Motion to Strike ‘Plaintiff s Written Notice of Acceptance of Defendant’s Proposal for Settlement as to Benefits Only.’ ” State Farm’s Objection and Motion to Strike stated that because the Plaintiff’s Written Notice of Acceptance did not comply with the clear specifications of the Proposal for Settlement, the Plaintiff had failed to accept the Proposal for Settlement. State Farm concluded that the Plaintiff had rejected State Farm’s Proposal for Settlement.
On August 07, 2017, the Plaintiff filed its Motion to Enforce Settlement and Memorandum of Law, and both the Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement and the Defendant’s Motion to Strike were heard by this Court on September 27, 2017.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The issue in this case is whether the Plaintiff and State Farm had a meeting of the minds as to the essential terms of State Farm’s Proposal for Settlement. This Court finds that the parties did not have a meeting of the minds, as the Plaintiff’s attempt to partially accept only the benefits portion of State Farm’s Proposal for Settlement served as a rejection of State Farm’s Proposal for Settlement and instead was a counter offer State Farm could accept or reject.
Florida courts have ruled that Florida still uses the mirror image rule when dealing with offers and acceptances in contract law. Montgomery v. English, 902 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) [30 Fla. L. Weekly D943a], review denied, 917 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 2005). In Montgomery, the appellate court, stated, “”Under this rule, in order for a contract to be formed, an acceptance of an offer must be absolute, unconditional, and identical with the terms of the offer.” (emphasis added). Id., citing Sullivan v. Econ. Research Properties, 455 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), and Holloway v. Gutman, 707 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) [23 Fla. L. Weekly D354b] (“holding that acceptance must be of the identical terms of the offer”).
Subsequent courts have relied on the Montgomery decision. See Franklin Pond, Inc. v. Ricci, 979 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) [33 Fla. L. Weekly D1070a] (changes to the proposed contract were deemed a counter offer); Knowling v. Manavogulu, 73 So. 3d 301 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) [36 Fla. L. Weekly D2227c]; and Trout v. Apicella, 78 So. 3d 681 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) [37 Fla. L. Weekly D245a].
In the Knowling case, the appellate court ruled that “the purported acceptance of the settlement offer did not mirror the offer and, therefore, did not create a binding contract of settlement.” Id. at 302. The appellate court further reasoned that in order for a settlement agreement to be binding, mutual assent must exist “as to all essential terms.” Id. at 303. (internal citations omitted). In the Trout case, the appellate court specifically stated that in order for an enforceable agreement to exist, the acceptance of the offer must meet be “1) absolute and unconditional; 2) identical with the terms of the offer, and 3) in the mode, at the place, and within the time expressly or impliedly stated within the offer.” Id. at 684, citing Nichols v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest, 834 So. 2d 217, 219 [Fla. 1DCA 2002] [27 Fla. L. Weekly D2188a]; and citing Cheverie v. Geisser, 783 So. 2d 115, 1119 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) [26 Fla. L. Weekly D769a].
In addition to the aforementioned cases, State Farm also relied on the case United Automobile Insurance Company v. El Portal Medical, Inc., 22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 788a (Fla. 11th Jud. Cir. [Appellate] Ct., January 20, 2015), in which the appellate court upheld a defendant’s Proposal for Settlement that allocated half of the proposed settlement amount to PIP benefits and half of the settlement amount to attorney’s fees and costs. The court determined that the Proposal for Settlement was not a joint offer since the case had only one plaintiff and one defendant, and therefore, the court ruled the Proposal for Settlement was valid.
The Court agrees with State Farm’s argument and the aforementioned case law that State Farm presented to the Court for review. The Court finds that the parties did not reach a settlement agreement.
It is therefore, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that the Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement is DENIED, and the Defendant’s “Motion to Strike ‘Plaintiff’s Written Notice of Acceptance of Defendant’s Proposal for Settlement to Plaintiff as to Benefits Only’ ” is GRANTED.
