GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
JENNIE THOMPSON AND MICHAEL MARTINDELL, APPELLEES
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.
GEICO appealed a trial court's denial of attorney's fees under Florida's offer of judgment statute after the court found no liability against GEICO. The court reversed, holding that the trial court incorrectly required a finding of unreasonable rejection when the statute only requires a finding of bad faith to deny fees.
The court held that unreasonable rejection is not a prerequisite to awarding attorney's fees under section 768.79; attorney's fees may only be denied upon a finding of bad faith by the offering party. The court also held that joint offers of judgment are valid and not invalid per se.
[1] An award of attorney's fees under section 768.79, Florida Statutes, may be denied only upon a finding of bad faith by the offering party, not upon a finding that the offe…
[2] A finding of no liability after an offer of judgment has been made establishes entitlement to attorney's fees under section 768.79, Florida Statutes.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“After an offer of judgment is made, the entitlement to attorney's fees under section 768.79 is established by the finding of no liability.”
Establishes that no liability finding triggers the statutory basis for attorney's fees
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJennie Thompson sued Michael Martindell and GEICO for injuries from a May 1991 automobile accident, seeking uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits. …
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 Attorney'S Fees Entitlement cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant, Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO), challenges the trial court’s order denying GEICO attorney’s fees pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes (1991), when there was no finding by the trial court that GEICO’s offer of judgment to appellee Jennie Thompson was made in bad faith. We agree and reverse.
Appellee Jennie Thompson sued Michael Martindell for injuries she received in an automobile accident that occurred on May 16, 1991. Appellee also sued GEICO, her personal insurance carrier, seeking to recover uninsured/underinsured motorists benefits. On January 8, 1993, GEICO, on behalf of itself and Martindell, made a joint offer of judgment pursuant to section 768.79 and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442 to settle all of appellee’s claims, including taxable costs, for the sum of $2,601.00. Appellee did not accept the offer. A trial ensued and the jury found no negligence on the part of Martindell. The trial court entered final judgment and ordered that appellee recover nothing from GEICO and Martindell.
Following the jury’s verdict, GEI-CO timely moved for attorney’s fees. The trial court, without receiving evidence, denied GEICO’s motion, finding that appellee did not “unreasonably reject” GEICO’s offer. After an offer of judgment is made, the entitlement to attorney’s fees under section 768.79 is established by the finding of no liability. The trial court erred in considering whether appellee was reasonable in rejecting GEICO’s offer, because an unreasonable rejection is not a prerequisite to an award of attorney’s fees under section 768.79. In fact, after the prerequisites of section 768.79 have been met, an award of attorney’s fees may be denied only upon a finding of “bad faith” on the part of the offering party. Dvorak v. TGI Friday’s, Inc., 19 Fla.L.Weekly D914, 639 So. 2d 58 (4th DCA 1994); Schmidt v. Fortner, 629 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).
Upon remand, the trial court may hold further evidentiary hearings to determine whether GEICO’s offer was not made in good faith. Appellee argues that GEICO’s offer was invalid because it was a joint, rather than joint and several, offer made on behalf of GEICO and Martindell. We have found no cases that hold a joint offer invalid per se, while numerous cases have recognized, without comment, the validity of joint offers. See Schmidt; Goodpaster v. Evans, 570 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), rev. denied, 581 So. 2d 164 (Fla.1991); Lennar Corp. v. Muskat, 595 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), rev. denied, 606 So. 2d 1165 (Fla.1992); Gross v. Albertson’s, Inc., 591 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). We decline to hold a joint offer invalid per se. The nature of any offer and its validity and enforceability may be factors pertaining to whether the offer is made in good faith.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
BLUE and FULMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
V.I.P. Real Est. Corp. v. Fla. Executive Realty Mgmt. Corp., 650 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…argument on two grounds: first, that the statute does not contemplate joint offers to two or more adverse parties and, second, that the statute does not apply to interpleader actions. In the recent case of Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 641 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), submitted by the appellee as supplemental authority, the court held that an offer made under section 768.79, Florida Statutes (1993), is not rendered invalid by the fact that it is a joint offer. In that case, a personal injury a…
-
Wagner v. Brandeberry, 761 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…rving his proposal. See T.G.I. Friday’s, 663 So. 2d at 613 (“[T]he wording of the statute as a whole leaves no doubt that the reasonableness of the rejection is irrelevant to the question of entitlement.”); Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 641 So. 2d 189, 190 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (“The trial court erred in con [*446] sidering whether appellee was reasonable in rejecting GEICO’s offer, because an unreasonable rejection is not a prerequisite to an award of attorney’s fees under section 768.79.”). Rather…
-
Twiddy v. Guttenplan, 678 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…e previously held that a joint offer pursuant to section 768.79 is not invalid per se, but may be found invalid by reason of the nature of the offer and its validity and enforceability against an offering party. Gov’t Employees Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 641 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Because the offer allegedly made on behalf of Guttenplan was not signed by her or her attorney, its enforceability is questionable. Moreover, the total offer on behalf of both the Rocas and Guttenplan was for $5,000. It is, there…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Susanne Rae Schmidt v. Fortner, 629 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Bowers v. State, 591 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Lennar Corp. v. Muskat, 595 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Dvorak v. TGI Friday's, Inc., 639 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Goodpaster v. Evans, 570 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)