From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stern v. Zamudio

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jan 12, 2001
780 So. 2d 155 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

Summary

holding that an offer was invalid because it failed to state the amount attributable to each of multiple plaintiff offerees as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442

Summary of this case from Thompson v. Hodson

Opinion

No. 2D00-1287.

Opinion filed January 12, 2001.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Edward H. Ward, Judge.

Affirmed in part; Reversed in part.

Herbert M. Berkowitz of Clark, Charlton Martino, P.A., Tampa, for Appellants.

Paula Walsh Rousselle of Saieva, Rousselle Stine, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee.


Appellants, Lynda and Dr. Herbert Stern, sue for damages arising from an automobile accident which occurred on April 25, 1993. Lynda Stern alleged personal injuries as a result of the accident, and Dr. Herbert Stern, her husband, sought consortium damages. On October 29, 1999, prior to trial, appellee served a proposal for settlement, pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes (1993), and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442, in the amount of $5,000 without specifying the amount attributed to each plaintiff. The offer was not accepted by the Sterns, and at trial, the Sterns received net verdicts totaling $780.75. Consequently, the trial court entered an order granting appellee's request for attorney fees pursuant to section 768.79. Appellants challenge this order. We reverse.

While the trial court correctly applied the substantive portions of the statute in effect at the time of the accident (section 768.79, Florida Statutes (1993)), it erred in failing to apply rule 1.442, which applies to all proposals for settlement authorized by Florida law made after its effective date, January 1, 1997. Subsection (c)(3) of the rule provides that "[a] joint proposal shall state the amount and terms attributable to each party." Therefore, the undifferentiated lump sum offer in this case was defective, and the sanctions of section 768.79 were not enforceable against the Sterns. The order granting attorney fees is therefore reversed. See USAA v. Behar, 752 So.2d 663 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Allstate Indemnity Co. v. Hingson, 25 Fla. L. Weekly D2431 (Fla. 2d DCA Oct. 11, 2000).

As to the other points raised by appellant, we affirm without discussion.

Threadgill, A.C.J., and Whatley, JJ., Concur.


Summaries of

Stern v. Zamudio

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jan 12, 2001
780 So. 2d 155 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

holding that an offer was invalid because it failed to state the amount attributable to each of multiple plaintiff offerees as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442

Summary of this case from Thompson v. Hodson
Case details for

Stern v. Zamudio

Case Details

Full title:LYNDA STERN and DR. HERBERT STERN, her husband, Appellants, v. LUIS…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Jan 12, 2001

Citations

780 So. 2d 155 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

Citing Cases

Thompson v. Hodson

Surely asymmetry has resulted in the past as a result of the offer of judgment procedure precisely because of…

Hibbard v. McGraw

The defendants' proposal for settlement was therefore unclear and ambiguous. Accordingly, the defendants were…