25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 670a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2507SANTInsurance — Personal injury protection — Attorney’s fees — Proposal for settlement — Striking — Because neither offer of judgment statute nor rule 1.442 applies to post-judgment proceedings, proposal for settlement served in attorney’s fees proceeding is stricken
MEDICAL CENTER OF THE PALM BEACHES D/B/A CENTRAL PALM BEACHES d/b/a PHYSICIANS & URGENT CARE, INC., a/a/o Carmen Santiago, Plaintiff, v. USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County. Case No. 50 2013 SC 012523 XXXX MB. August 18, 2017. Sherri L. Collins, Judge. Counsel: Peter S. Van Keuren, for Plaintiff. Scott W. Dutton and O. Oliver Wragg, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKEPLAINTIFF’S PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on August 14, 2017, on Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Proposal for Settlement and the Court, having heard argument of counsel, and being otherwise duly advised in the premised, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. Plaintiff sued Defendant, USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, for breach of contract in connection with a claim for Personal Injury Protection Benefits on behalf of Carmen Santiago who was injured in an automobile accident occurring on May 15, 2013.
2. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on or about November 6, 2013.
3. The Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment on December 10, 2013 and its Amended Motion for Summary Judgment on May 6, 2014.
4. This Court entered the Order dated August 20, 2014, granting Final Summary Judgment in favor of Defendant and Certificate of Question of Great Public Importance [22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 279a].
5. The ruling was appealed by Appellant, Medical Center of the Palm Beaches, and the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District State of Florida, accepted jurisdiction of the case and ordered that the proceedings in the trial court be stayed pending further order of that court.
6. Thereafter, Appellee’s January 20, 2016 motion for attorney’s fees was granted “conditioned on the trial court determining that appellee is entitled to fees under section 768.79 Florida Statutes (2016).”
7. On August 31, 2016, the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District State of Florida, affirmed the ruling of the lower court and made a determination as to the certified question favorable to Appellee, USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY [41 Fla. L. Weekly D2018b].
8. Appellant filed its Motion for Rehearing or Rehearing en banc on September 26, 2016.
9. The District Court of Appeal, Fourth District State of Florida, issued its Mandate as to its prior opinion in favor of the Appellee, USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, on December 2, 2016.
10. Given USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY is the prevailing party, it filed its Motion to Tax (Attorneys) Fees and Costs for this underlying action and in relation to the appeal on December 8, 2016.
11. The Plaintiff then filed a Notice of Serving Proposal for Settlement on May 1, 2017 and served on the Defendant its Proposal for Settlement on the same date.
12. On May 22, 2017, Defendant filed its Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Proposal for Settlement and on May 31, 2017, filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to the Proposal for Settlement.
13. The Court finds that neither the Offer of Judgment statute, F.S. § 768.79, nor Rule 1.442 apply to post-judgment proceedings. There is nothing in the language of either the statute or the rule that suggests their applicability to proceedings following an adjudication on the merits. If the Legislature had so intended it would have made such a provision.
14. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Proposal for Settlement is GRANTED and Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff’s Proposal for Settlement is therefore MOOT.
