JANET JAMIESON AND ROBERT JAMIESON, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
BRIAN D. KURLAND, M.D., INDIVIDUALLY, AND DAVID M. BERNSTEIN, M.D., AND JACOB H. GOLDBERGER, M.D., P.A., D/B/A SURGICAL ASSOCIATES OF SOUTHWEST 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.
Janet and Robert Jamieson appealed a trial court's award of costs and attorney's fees to defendants in a medical malpractice case. The court reversed the award as to Robert Jamieson because the defendants' settlement offer failed to comply with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442 by containing contradictory monetary terms and failing to clearly state nonmonetary conditions.
The settlement offer to Robert Jamieson did not comply with Rule 1.442 because it failed to state the total amount unambiguously and failed to state with particularity all nonmonetary terms. Compliance with Rule 1.442(c)(2)(C) and (D) is mandatory, and a defective settlement offer cannot justify an award of costs and attorney's fees.
[1] A proposal for settlement must state the total amount of the proposal and all nonmonetary terms with particularity to comply with Rule 1.442(c)(2)(D), Florida Rules of Ci…
[2] Ambiguities in a proposal for settlement prevent a recipient from fully evaluating its terms and conditions, thus violating the rule's intent for specificity.
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“Rule 1.442(a) specifically states that '[t]his rule applies to all proposals for settlement.' The rule goes on to provide at (c)(2)(D) that the proposal shall 'state the total amount of the proposal and state with particularity all nonmonetary terms of the proposal.'”
Establishes the mandatory requirements for settlement proposals under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Jamiesons sued three defendants for medical malpractice. A jury returned a verdict for the defendants. The defendants filed a motion to tax costs …
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 Proposal For Settlement Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
GREEN, Judge.
Janet Jamieson and Robert Jamieson sued the defendants, Brian Kurland, M.D., individually, and Jacob Goldberger and David Bernstein, M.D.s, d/b/a Surgical Associates of Southwest Florida, for medical malpractice. The jury returned a' verdict for the defendants.
The defendants filed a motion to tax costs and attorney’s fees, which the trial court granted. The Jamiesons argue that the settlement offer to Mr. Jamieson did not adhere to rule 1.442, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, and therefore did not justify the award of costs and attorney’s fees. We agree and reverse that award. A separate settlement offer was made to Mrs. Jamieson, which is not a subject of this appeal.
The standard of review for this issue is de novo. See Kaplan v. Bayer, 782 So. 2d 417, 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). A proposal for settlement is in the nature of a contract. See BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Krathen, 471 So. 2d 585, 587 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), review denied, 484 So. 2d 7 (Fla.1986).
In paragraph three of the settlement proposal, the defendants offered settlement of Mr. Jamieson’s claim for $200. However, in paragraph four of that same proposal, the defendants contrarily asserted that “[t]he total amount of the Proposal for Settlement to Plaintiff, ROBERT JA-MIESON, is — TWO HUNDRED AND 00/100 DOLLARS ($1,000.00).” Additionally, paragraph three listed certain relevant conditions to the proposal, i.e., that the parties execute a joint stipulation for dismissal with prejudice, that plaintiff execute a general release, and that a confidentiality agreement be part of the release. However, paragraph four provided: “There are no non-monetary [sic] terms of the Proposal for Settlement.”
Rule 1.442(a) specifically states that “[t]his rule applies to all proposals for settlement.” The rule goes on to provide at (c)(2)(D) that the proposal shall “state the total amount of the proposal and state with particularity all nonmonetary terms of the proposal.” The settlement proposal to Mr. Jamieson failed to meet these requirements. See Lucas v. Calhoun, 813 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). It is inconsequential that no attempt was made by Mr. Jamieson to accept the offer. This court recently held in Lucas that compliance with subsections (C) and (D) of rule 1.442(c)(2) is mandatory. We further stated, “[t]he rule intends for a proposal for judgment to be as specific as possible, leaving no ambiguities so that the recipient can fully evaluate its terms and conditions.” Id. at 973; see also United Serv. Auto. Ass’n v. Behar, 752 So. 2d 663, 665 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).
Because the settlement proposal to Mr. Jamieson did not adhere to the provisions of rule 1.442, it was not a valid proposal for settlement. The Jamiesons concede that only the settlement proposal to Mr. Jamieson was the subject of this appeal, and since the judgment awarding attorney’s fees against the Jamiesons was collective against both plaintiffs, our decision does not affect the award against Mrs. Jamieson. We therefore reverse the trial court’s order granting cost and attorney’s fees to be paid by Mr. Jamieson to the defendants. We remand to the trial judge for further proceedings with respect to the portion of the judgment as it pertains to Mrs. Jamieson.
Reversed and remanded.
BLUE, C.J., and KELLY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Swartsel v. Publix Super Mkts., Inc., 882 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…le intends for a proposal for judgment to be as specific as possible, leaving no ambiguities so that the recipient can fully evaluate its terms and conditions.” Lucas v. Calhoun, 813 So. 2d 971, 973 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); see also Jamieson v. Kurland, 819 So. 2d 267, 268-69 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Connell v. Floyd, 866 So. 2d 90, 92 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Further, because the offer of judgment statute and its companion rule of civil procedure are in derogation of the common law rule that each party shall pay its own…
-
Saenz v. Campos, 967 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…ncluded as requisite non-monetary terms. The trial court granted the motion to strike the proposal for settlement, but never ruled on the plaintiffs motion to tax costs and fees. We give proposals for settlement de novo review. Jamieson v. Kurland, 819 So. 2d 267, 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); accord, Miami-Dade County v. Ferrer, 943 So. 2d 288, 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). Section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2006), provides the substantive law concerning proposals for settlement while Rule 1.442, Florida Rules of Civil…
-
Wolfe v. Culpepper Constructors, Inc., 104 So. 3d 1132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…a joint offer that could only be accepted by Cul-pepper were Culpepper to dismiss its then pending claims against both Mr. and Mrs. Wolfe. Entitlement to attorney’s fees and costs under an offer of judgment is reviewed de novo. Jamieson v. Kurland, 819 So. 2d 267, 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Here, the Wolfes’ joint offer specifically stated that it was made to resolve all claims and counterclaims pending in the instant litigation. The settlement amount was $25,000, of which $12,500 would be paid by Mr. Wolfe an…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- BMW OF N. Am., Inc. v. Krathen, 471 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Kristopher D. Lucas v. Donald M. and Kathy M. Calhoun, 813 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Raymond J. Behar, M.D., 752 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Kaplan v. Bayer, 782 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)