GARY AND CHRISTIE DOMORACKI
v.
QBE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

M.D. Fla. | 2025-10-21
No. 3:22-cv-545
2024 WL 922640 2025 FFL 27418 District Court, M.D. Florida (2025) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 2024 WL 916525
Cited by 5 cases

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.

Synopsis

In a Hurricane Ian insurance dispute, the court denied plaintiffs' motion to strike defendant's notices of offers of judgment filed under Florida Statute § 768.79, holding that motions to strike are improper vehicles for challenging such offers and that any sanctions determination would be premature.

Holding

The court held that motions to strike are inappropriate for challenging matters outside pleadings, including offers of judgment, and that any determination regarding potential § 768.79 sanctions would be premature at this stage of the case.

Key Quotes

“motions to strike are only appropriately addressed toward matters contained in the pleadings”

Establishes that motions to strike have limited scope and cannot be used to challenge documents outside pleadings

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence
Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiffs Gary and Christie Domoracki filed suit against QBE Specialty Insurance Company in a Hurricane Ian-related insurance case. Defendant QBE fil…

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.

Topics
Offer Of Judgment Motion To Strike

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Offer Of Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

In this Hurricane Ian case, the defendant filed notices of serving offers of judgment pursuant to Florida Statute § 768.79, and the plaintiffs move to strike them. But "motions to strike are only appropriately addressed toward matters contained in the pleadings.” Bowman v. Harvey, No. 3:22-cv-545-MMH-MCR, 2024 WL 1299280, *1 n.3 [fn 1] (M.D. Fla. Mar. 27, 2024) (quoting Polite v. Dougherty Cnty. Sch. Sys., 314 F. App'x 180, 184 n.7 (11th Cir. 2008)); see also In re Fancher, 802 F. App'x 538, 544 (11th Cir. 2020) (“motions to strike are more properly filed in reference to pleadings").

Plus, it would be premature to take up any motion concerning a potential § 768.79 sanction. See Ange's Auto Repair & Serv., Inc v. Century Sur. Co., No. 2:21-CV-655-SPC-NPM, 2024 WL 922640, *3–4 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 13, 2024), R&R adopted, 2024 WL 916525 (Mar. 1, 2024) (§ 768.79 is not a fee-shifting statute; rather, a party may be sanctioned under § 768.79 for unreasonably rejecting

a settlement offer, and to arrive at an appropriate sanction, an opponent's fees, costs, and non-taxable expenses are among the various factors to be considered).

Plaintiffs' motion (Doc. 36) is DENIED.

ORDERED on October 21, 2025

NICHOLAS P. MIZELL United States Magistrate Judge

[*2]

[fn 1]: The citation to Bowman v. Harvey is to a footnote that discusses the procedural posture of a motion to strike.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Gary and Christie Domoracki v. QBE Specialty Ins. Co., 2024 WL 922640 (M.D. Fla. 2025)
    …to strike are more properly filed in reference to pleadings”). Plus, it would be premature to take up any motion concerning a potential § 768.79 sanction. See Ange’s Auto Repair & Serv., Inc v. Century Sur. Co., No. 2:21-CV-655-SPC-NPM, 2024 WL 922640, *3–4 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 13, 2024), R&R adopted, 2024 WL 916525 (Mar. 1, 2024) (§ 768.79 is not a fee-shifting statute; rather, a party may be sanctioned under § 768.79 for unreasonably rejecting a settlement offer, and to arrive at an appropriate sanc…
    1 / 2
  • Andrews v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP (M.D. Fla. 2025)
    …is entitled to sanction Andrews for not accepting the offer.³ By October 31, 2025, Andrews and Stevens must review Ange's Auto Repair & Serv., Inc v. Century Sur. Co., No. 2:21-CV-655- SPC-NPM, 2024 WL 922640 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 13, 2024), R&R adopted, 2024 WL 916525 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 1, 2024), and diligently confer in person or via videoconference in a good faith effort to resolve this issue based on an examination of defense counsel's invoices, which may be redacted to preserve privilege. To the extent any dispu…
    1 / 2
  • Corrales v. Walmart Stores E., LP (M.D. Fla. 2025)
    …Walmart is entitled to sanction Corrales for not accepting the offer.¹ By October 31, 2025, the parties must review Ange's Auto Repair & Serv., Inc v. Century Sur. Co., No. 2:21-CV-655-SPC-NPM, 2024 WL 922640 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 13, 2024), R&R adopted, 2024 WL 916525 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 1, 2024), and diligently confer in person or via videoconference in a good faith effort to resolve this issue based on an examination of defense counsel's invoices, which may be redacted to preserve privilege. To the extent any dispu…
    1 / 2

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw