STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
PATRICIA SHARKEY, APPELLEE
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.
State Farm appealed the trial court's denial of its motion for attorney's fees and costs under Florida's offer of judgment statute after its $500 settlement proposal in an underinsured motorist case was rejected and no additional recovery was obtained. The court reversed, finding State Farm had a reasonable basis for making the nominal settlement offer and was entitled to attorney's fees and costs.
State Farm did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion because State Farm had a reasonable basis for making the nominal settlement offer. A minimal settlement offer can be made in good faith if the offeror had a reasonable basis at the time to conclude its exposure was nominal, and the offer need not equate with the total amount of damages at issue.
[1] A nominal settlement offer is not inherently suspect if it bears a reasonable relationship to the amount of damages or a realistic assessment of liability at the time it…
[2] A party making a nominal settlement offer has a reasonable basis to conclude its exposure is nominal when supported by evidence available at the time of the offer.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The rule is that a minimal offer can be made in good faith if the evidence demonstrates that, at the time it was made, the offeror had a reasonable basis to conclude that its exposure was nominal.”
Establishes the legal standard for evaluating whether nominal settlement offers are reasonable under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePatricia Sharkey was struck from behind in a car accident and settled with the vehicle owner for over $200,000. Believing her injuries exceeded that a…
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 Settlement cases and more on FLexlaw
POLEN, J.
Appellant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”), appeals a final order denying its motion for attorney’s fees and costs. This case began with a car accident in which Appel-lee, Patricia Sharkey, was struck from behind. Sharkey sued the owner of the vehicle that had struck her and eventually settled for a sum in excess of $200,000. Alleging that her injuries exceeded this amount, Sharkey sued State Farm to recover under her Uninsured Motorist/Un-derinsured Motorist policy. Based on Sharkey’s prior settlement and its belief that its exposure to liability was minimal, State Farm filed a proposal for a nominal settlement, offering Sharkey $500. Shar-key did not accept this offer. Sharkey’s suit did not result in the recovery of additional damages from State Farm. State Farm filed a motion for entitlement to attorney’s fees and costs, pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2005). The trial court denied State Farm’s motion. We find that the trial court abused its discretion in denying State Farm’s motion and reverse.
The trial court found that State Farm’s proposed settlement was nominal, and that it did not have a reasonable basis to file a nominal settlement proposal. Offers are not suspect merely because they are nominal. See Eagleman v. Eagleman, 673 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Offers, nominal or otherwise, must bear a reasonable relationship to the amount of damages or a realistic assessment of liability. Id. at 948. “The rule is that a minimal offer can be made in good faith if the evidence demonstrates that, at the time it was made, the offeror had a reasonable basis to conclude that its exposure was nominal.” Connell v. Floyd, 866 So. 2d 90, 94 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). “The offer need not equate with the total amount of damages that might be at issue.” Gurney v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 889 So. 2d 97, 99 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). “The trial judge will have to consider all the surrounding circumstances when the offer was made.” Fox v. McCaw Cellular Commc’ns of Fla., 745 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
We find that State Farm had a reasonable basis for making a nominal settlement offer. At the time State Farm made the offer of $500, it was aware of Sharkey’s past medical expenses, but was also aware that Sharkey had received a settlement in excess of $200,000. This information gave State Farm reason to believe its liability for past medical damages was nominal. Further, based on other evidence available to State Farm at the time of the offer, we find that State Farm had a reasonable basis for believing that its exposure to liability for other claimed damages was minimal. Therefore, we find that the trial court abused its discretion in denying State Farm’s motion and reverse.
KLEIN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Land & SEA Petroleum, Inc. v. Bus. Specialists, Inc., 53 So. 3d 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…scovery only on the buyer, the seller’s “$500 offer on a commission claim that was basically $300,000” could not have been in good faith. However, “[o]ffers are not suspect merely because they are nominal.” State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Sharkey, 928 So. 2d 1263, 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). As we stated in Sharkey: Offers, nominal or otherwise, must bear a reasonable relationship to the amount of damages or a realistic assessment of liability. The rule is that a minimal offer can be made in good faith if the…
-
Taylor Eng'g v. Dickerson Fla., Inc., 221 So. 3d 719 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…e made in good faith if the evidence demonstrates that, at the time it was made, the pfferor had a reasonable basis to conclude that its exposure was nominal.” 164 So. 3d 1, 3 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (quoting State Farm. Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Sharkley, 928 So. 2d 1263, 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (emphasis original)). The Fourth District opined that - the no-exposure standard is “too onerous.” Id. at 3; see also Sharaby v. KLV Gems Co., 45 So. 3d 560, 564 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (Warner, J., concurring) (disagreeing wit…
-
Matrisciani v. Garrison Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 298 So. 3d 53 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)…s proposal was not made in good faith.” Sharaby, 45 So. 3d at 563 (quoting Liggett Grp. Inc. v. Davis, 975 So. 2d 1281, 1285 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)). Offers are not suspect merely because they are nominal.” State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Sharkey, 928 So. 2d 1263, 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). As we stated in Sharkey: Offers, nominal or otherwise, must bear a reasonable relationship to the amount of damages or a realistic assessment of liability. “The rule is that a minimal offer can be made in good faith if t…
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
- Eagleman v. Atilla Eagleman, 673 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Ira FOX v. McCAW Cellular Commc'ns OF Fla., Inc., 745 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Connell v. Floyd, 866 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Gurney v. State Farm Mut. Auto., 889 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)