CLEOMENE ALEXANDRE AND EDNER FRANCOIS, APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES,
v.
STACI LEE MEYER, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
A plaintiff's demand for judgment under section 768.79 is not made in bad faith solely because the defendant's insurance policy limits are lower than the demand amount.
Plaintiff made a demand for judgment for $76,000, which was rejected by the defendants. The jury awarded plaintiff $215,000, reduced by comparative ne…
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 Of Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
Defendants appeal an award of attorney’s fees to plaintiff resulting from their rejection of plaintiffs demand for judgment made pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes (1995). We affirm.
Shortly after the accident underlying this lawsuit, plaintiffs counsel offered to settle for the $10,000 limits of the defendants’ insurance policy. When the insurer rejected that offer, plaintiff filed suit, and later served a demand for judgment pursuant to section 768.79, for $76,000. The demand was not accepted, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $215,000, finding the plaintiff to be ten percent comparatively negligent, resulting in a net judgment for plaintiff in the amount of $183,500. The trial court awarded plaintiff attorney’s fees, and defendants appeal.
Defendants argue that plaintiffs demand for judgment in the amount of $76,-000 was not made in good faith because plaintiff knew the defendants’ policy limits were $10,000, and therefore her demand could not result in a settlement. We disagree.
Section 768.79 does not require either ability to pay or payment in order to accept a demand for judgment. Defendants could have agreed to plaintiffs demand for judgment even if they did not have the ability to pay. The court would then have had the authority, under section 768.79(4), to “enforce the settlement agreement,” presumably by entering a judgment. Plaintiffs demand, therefore, could have produced a settlement, and defendants’ argument is without merit.
Our standard of review on whether the demand is in good faith is abuse of discretion. § 768.79(7)(a). We find no abuse here and affirm.
WARNER, J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ryan v. Leonor Lobo de Gonzalez and Jorge Gonzalez, 841 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…ment to an award of fees is if it determines that a qualifying offer was not made in good faith.” Id. The issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion when it found that the $100 offers were not made in good faith. See Alexandre v. Meyer, 732 So. 2d 44, 45 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (the standard of review on a finding that an offer is not made in good faith is whether the trial court abused its discretion). Defendants argue that the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to consider the limit…
-
Wagner v. Brandeberry, 761 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…lected to join his uninsured/underin-sured carrier as a defendant. He took his chances and lost. Just as Marko attempted to protect, his interests, State Farm did the same by making the $1 offer of judgment. Id. at 876. See also Alexandre v. Meyer, 732 So. 2d 44, 45 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (holding that the plaintiffs proposal for settlement for $76,000 made to a defendant with a $10,000 insurance coverage limit was made in good faith even though there was no way for the defendant to pay the full amount of the…
-
Stephen A. Levine, PH.D. v. Harris, 791 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…od faith. Id. In this case, the parties do not dispute that Appellants are entitled to attorneys’ fees. The issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion when it found that the $500 offer was not made in good faith. See Alexandre v. Meyer, 732 So. 2d 44, 45 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (standard of review on a finding that an offer is not made in [*1178] good faith is whether the trial court abused its discretion). The burden is upon the offeree to prove that the offeror acted without good faith. Schmidt,…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence