26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 588b
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2607JFERInsurance — Declaratory actions — Attorney’s fees — Proposal for settlement statute is not applicable to actions seeking non-monetary relief — Proposal is stricken
H2O RESTORATION SOLUTION, INC., a/a/o Jose Fernandez, Plaintiff, v. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Defendant. County Court, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Civil Division. Case No. 17-12242-CC-25. September 12, 2018. Carlos Guzman, Judge. Counsel: Francisco Cieza, Law Office of Francisco Cieza, P.A., Coral Gables, for Plaintiff. Jeffrey Keller, Cole Scott & Kissane, for Defendant.
ORDER ON PLAINITFF’S MOTION TO STRIKEDEFENDANT’S PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT
THIS CAUSE, having come before this Court on June 11, 2018, on Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Proposal for Settlement and this Court, having read and considered the Motion, reviewed the Court file, relevant legal authorities, having heard argument, having made a thorough review of the matters argued, and having been sufficiently advised in the premises, the Court finds as follows:
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. On February 22, 2018, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint which contained a single count for declaratory relief.
2. The sole relief requested by the Plaintiff in its declaratory count is “to make a declaration of coverage.”
3. On March 4, 2018, Defendant served the Plaintiff with a proposal for settlement related to this action.
4. Plaintiff filed the underlying motion to strike the proposal for settlement based on the fact that Plaintiff’s amended complaint seeks non-monetary relief in its count for declaratory relief.
5 .When a plaintiff seeks nonmonetary relief, courts have held that Fla. Stat. 768.79, as it pertains to proposals for settlement, does not apply. Diamond Aircraft Industries, Inc., v. Horowitch, 107 So.3d 362 (2013) [38 Fla. L. Weekly S17a].
6. In the instant case, because plaintiff’s amended complaint is seeking non-monetary relief, this Court finds that the proposal for settlement should be stricken.
7. Consequently, Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Proposal for Settlement is hereby GRANTED and the proposal for settlement served on the Plaintiff on March 4, 2018 is stricken.
