H.R.J. BAR-B-Q, INC., D/B/A/ CHUCK WAGON BAR-B-Q, INC., H.J.U. SALES AND INVESTMENTS, INC., AND HY UCHITEL, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
RALPH SHAPIRO, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this employment dispute, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a jury verdict against defendants in a case involving termination and compensation claims. The court held that evidence of a settlement offer made at the time of termination was admissible because no disputed claim yet existed, making Florida's offer-of-compromise rule inapplicable.
The court held that the jury verdict was supported by evidence as to both liability and damages. The offer made at termination was not inadmissible under section 90.408 because at that time there was no existing disputed claim, which is a prerequisite for the offer-of-compromise rule to apply.
[1] Evidence of an offer made when no claim was disputed as to validity or amount is not inadmissible as an offer of compromise.
[2] Evidence supporting a jury verdict as to liability and damages will be affirmed on appeal.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“evidence of an offer made to the plaintiff when he was "fired" by one of the defendants was not inadmissible as an offer of compromise under section 90.408, Florida Statutes (1983) because there was then, within the meaning of the statute, no existing "claim which was disputed as to validity or amount."”
Establishes the core holding that the offer-of-compromise rule did not apply because no disputed claim existed at the time of the offer.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff (Shapiro) was fired by one of the defendants. At the time of termination, one of the defendants made an offer to the plaintiff. The case…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Offer In Compromise cases and more on FLexlaw
[*404] PER CURIAM.
We conclude that the evidence supports the jury verdict as to both liability and damages, see Helman v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co., 349 So. 2d 1187 (Fla.1977); Florida Tomato Packers, Inc. v. Wilson, 296 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 327 So. 2d 32 (Fla.1976), and that evidence of an offer made to the plaintiff when he was “fired” by one of the defendants was not inadmissible as an offer of compromise under section 90.408, Florida Statutes (1983)1 because there was then, within the meaning of the statute, no existing “claim which was disputed as to validity or amount.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Winnemore, 413 F. 2d 858, 863 (5th Cir. 1969); Miller Yacht Sales, Inc. v. Lee, 368 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), cert. denied, 378 So. 2d 347 (Fla.1979); Frank v. Ru-witch, 318 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 330 So. 2d 725 (Fla.1976); McCormick on Evidence § 274 nn. 76-77 (2d ed. 1972); 4 Wigmore, Evidence § 1061 n. 1 (Chadbourn rev. 1972) (“We deal here with an offer to pay or settle after a controversy has arisen between the parties. Offers to pay or settle prior to controversy are distinguishable.” [e.o.]); 31A C.J.S. Evidence § 285 (1964) (“[T]here must be a controversy between the parties at the time of the alleged offer, for if there is no controversy there is nothing to compromise.”). The other points do not present error or require discussion.
Affirmed.
. Compromise and offers to compromise.— Evidence of an offer to compromise a claim which was disputed as to validity or amount, as well as any relevant conduct or statements made in negotiations concerning a compromise, is inadmissible to prove liability or absence of liability for the claim or its value.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rease v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 644 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…ity and damages. . Scott v. Otis Elevator Co., 572 So. 2d 902, 903 (Fla.1990). . Section 90.408 has also been held not to apply when the offer of settlement was written prior to the initiation of the lawsuit. See HRJ Barbecue Co., Inc. v. Shapiro, 463 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Here, the 1991 letter was written prior to Rease's filing of her August 1991 complaint; thus, under Shapiro, the statutory prohibition would not apply. However, the holding in Shapiro has been questioned by a respected commentato…
-
Bellamy v. Ameri-Pride, Inc., 157 So. 3d 1053 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…; the statute excludes evidence of an offer to compromise “a claim which was disputed as to validity or amount[.]” This record does not disclose whether Bellamy’s claim was disputed when he spoke to Michael Huck. See H.R.J. Bar-B-Q, Inc. v. Shapiro, 463 So. 2d 403, 404 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (holding that evidence of offer made to plaintiff when he was fired by defendant not inadmissible where there was no existing claim that was disputed as to liability or amount). Be that as it may, even disregarding Huck’s off…
Authorities Cited
- Helman v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. & William A. Cagle, 349 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 1977)
- Fla. Tomato Packers, Inc. v. Wilson, 296 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Frank v. Ruwitch, 318 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Winnemore, 413 F.2d 858 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Miller Yacht Sales, Inc. v. LEE, 368 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)