JOSE CARDONA, APPELLANT,
v.
METRO DADE TRANSIT AGENCY, SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICES; COMPREHENSIVE PARATRANSIT SERVICES; AND METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Jose Cardona appealed a final judgment in defendants' favor after the trial court refused to enforce a high-low settlement agreement capping his recovery between $15,000 and $100,000. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that high-low agreements are enforceable settlements that do not constitute illegal Mary Carter agreements or violate public policy.
High-low agreements are enforceable settlements when all parties agree and liability is not shifted between co-defendants. The agreement here was not a Mary Carter Agreement because it lacked the essential feature of pitting one defendant against others and all defendants shared benefits equally. The trial court erred in refusing to enforce the agreement.
[1] A "high-low" agreement, where the plaintiff and all defendants agree to a minimum and maximum judgment amount regardless of the jury's verdict, is a common and enforceabl…
[2] A "high-low" agreement is distinguishable from a Mary Carter Agreement because it does not involve shifting liability between co-defendants.
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“A Mary Carter Agreement is "a contract by which one co-defendant secretly agrees with the plaintiff that, if such defendant will proceed to defend himself in court, his own maximum liability will be diminished proportionately by increasing the liability of the other codefendants."”
Establishes the definition and essential feature of a Mary Carter Agreement, which is the secret liability-shifting aspect distinguishing it from high-low agreements.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBefore trial, Cardona and all defendants entered a high-low agreement setting Cardona's maximum recovery at $100,000 and minimum at $15,000, with defe…
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 Mary Carter Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
SHEVIN, Judge.
Plaintiff Jose Cardona appeals a final judgment in defendants’ favor. We reverse.
Prior to commencement of the evidentiary portion of the trial, Cardona and all the defendants entered into a “high-low” agreement: regardless of the jury’s verdict, Cardona’s maximum recovery would be $100,000; the minimum would be $15,000. For purposes of the agreement, defendants were willing to concede one percent liability.
After a jury verdict in defendants’ favor, the court refused to enforce the agreement and entered an “Order Disapproving High-Low Stipulation” essentially finding that the agreement was tantamount to gambling, violated public policy, and offended the integrity of the court and the jury system. The court then entered final judgment for defendants.
We cannot agree that the high-low stipulation was an unenforceable Mary Carter Agreement.1 A Mary Carter Agreement is “a contract by which one co-defendant secretly agrees with the plaintiff that, if such defendant will proceed to defend himself in court, his own maximum liability will be diminished proportionately by increasing the liability of the other codefendants.” Dosdourian v. Carsten, 624 So. 2d 241, 243 (Fla.1993)(emphasis added). The hallmark of a Mary Carter Agreement is the pitting of one defendant against the remaining defendants at trial. Ward v. Ochoa, 284 So. 2d 385 (Fla.1973). In contrast, the agreement in this case is “totally devoid of that liability shifting feature essential to a Mary Carter Agreement.” 27th Avenue Gulf Serv. Ctr. v. Smellie, 510 So. 2d 996, 998 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Here, all of the defendants agreed to the settlement, shared the benefits of the liability cap, and liability was not shifted.
If the tables were turned, and instead of a defense verdict, the jury returned a plaintiffs verdict in an amount in excess of $100,-000, and the court had chosen to disregard the agreement and enter judgment for the full amount of the jury verdict, the defendants would have been justifiably outraged.
“An agreement where the defendant and plaintiff agree to a minimum and maximum amount of a judgment notwithstanding the jury verdict is a common form of settlement. It does not diminish the liability of one party by proportionately increasing the liability of another party.” Smellie, 510 So. 2d at 998. This court has approved high-low agreements recognizing that they do not carry the onus attached to Mary Carter Agreements. Oakwood Hills Co. v. Horacio Toledo, Inc., 599 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 609 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1992); Smellie. We continue to do so. The final judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded with instructions to enter judgment in the amount of $15,000 in plaintiffs favor. Reversed and remanded with instructions.
. Booth v. Mary Carter Paint Co., 202 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967), rejected by, Ward v. Ochoa, 284 So. 2d 385 (Fla.1973), abrogated by, Dosdourian v. Carsten, 624 So. 2d 241 (Fla.1993).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gulf Indus., Inc. v. Jayachandran Nair, 953 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…nt. Furthermore, the $1,000,000 range between the high and low limits of the agreement suggests that Travelers had a genuine incentive to defend itself against fault resulting from the first and second accidents. Cf. Cardona v. Metro Transit Agency, 680 So. 2d 1098,1099 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (reversing trial court’s refusal to enforce high-low agreement where agreement set settling defendants’ liability at a range of no more than $100,000 and no less than $15,000). Based on these considerations, we find that the…
Authorities Cited
- Ward v. Ochoa, 284 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 1973)
- Booth v. Mary Carter Paint Co., 202 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- In re Inquiry Concerning a Judge James E. Lehan-No. 93-224, 624 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 1993)
- Dosdourian v. Carsten, 624 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 1993)
- 27TH Ave. Gulf Serv. Ctr. & Wilfred Gibson v. Smellie, 510 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Oakwood Hills Co. v. Horacio Toledo, Inc., 599 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)