ROGER J. GONZALEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
DAWN ELIZABETH CLAYWELL, 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.
Defendant Gonzalez appeals an order awarding attorneys' fees to plaintiff Claywell under Florida's offer of settlement statute. The court reversed, finding Claywell's settlement proposal invalid because it required Gonzalez's insurance company to tender payment in excess of its policy limits, a condition he could not possibly perform.
The proposal for settlement was invalid and unenforceable because it imposed a condition that Gonzalez could not possibly perform—requiring GEICO to tender payment well in excess of its $25,000 policy limits without any determination that GEICO was liable for excess amounts. The proposal was also ambiguous and failed to satisfy the particularity requirement of Rule 1.442.
[1] A proposal for settlement is invalid and unenforceable if it contains a condition that the defendant cannot possibly perform.
[2] A proposal for settlement is invalid and unenforceable if it requires a nonparty insurer to tender a check in excess of its policy limits without a prior determination of…
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“the proposal contained a condition that Gonzalez could not possibly perform, and divested him "of independent control of the decision to settle," it was invalid and unenforceable.”
Establishes the core principle that settlement proposals must contain conditions the offeree can actually perform.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaywell suffered significant injuries in a vehicular collision with Gonzalez and made a proposal for settlement offering to settle for $240,000 on th…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
Roger J. Gonzalez, the defendant in this negligence action, appeals an order awarding attorneys’ fees to Dawn Elizabeth Claywell, appellee, pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2008), and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442. The proposal for settlement executed by Clay-well, who suffered significant injuries in the vehicular collision, offered to settle her lawsuit for $240,000, if Gonzalez’s insurance company, GEICO, tendered a check in the amount of $240,000 made payable to her.1 The offer was not accepted and, *1001after a jury trial, Claywell was awarded a total judgment of $394,029.71, which was affirmed on appeal. Gonzalez v. Claywell, 24 So.3d 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). Because we find that Claywell’s offer was invalid and unenforceable, we reverse.
We conclude that the proposal for settlement was invalid and unenforceable because it was impossible for Gonzalez to meet the conditions of the proposal.2 Specifically, the proposal required that GEICO, a nonparty, tender a check well in excess of its policy limits of $25,000, even though there has been no determination that GEICO is liable to pay more than its policy limits. See Boston Old Colony Ins. Co. v. Gutierrez, 386 So.2d 783 (Fla.1980) (recognizing that insurer who acts in bad faith so as to subject insured to a judgment in excess of the policy limits may be liable for the excess judgment). Because the proposal contained a condition that Gonzalez could not possibly perform, and divested him “of independent control of the decision to settle,” it was invalid and unenforceable. Attorneys’ Title Ins. Fund, Inc. v. Gorka, 36 So.3d 646, 649 (Fla.2010). At a minimum, the proposal is ambiguous because Gonzalez could not effectively evaluate the condition that GEICO tender the settlement check. Rule 1.442 requires a proposal 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). “If ambiguity within the proposal could reasonably affect the offeree’s decision, the proposal will not satisfy the particularity requirement.” State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 932 So.2d 1067, 1079 (Fla.2006).
REVERSED.
VAN NORTWICK, WETHERELL, and ROWE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Saritha Reddy Paduru and Ravi Anugu v. Klinkenberg, 157 So. 3d 314 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…an event entirely outside the independent control of the offerees that would never occur.... An offer that cannot be unilaterally accepted to create a binding settlement is an illusory offer.” Id. at 651-52. More recently, in Gonzalez v. Claywell, 82 So. 3d 1000 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011), we addressed the validity of a proposal for settlement which formed the basis of an attorney’s fee award under section 768.79 and rule 1.442. The proposal in that case was directed from the plaintiff, Claywell, to the defendant,…
-
Diecidue v. Lewis, 223 So. 3d 1015 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…fs, who had a derivative claim for loss of consortium, of control as to her own claim). A proposal for settlement is considered ambiguous, and therefore unenforceable, if it is impossible for the offeree to meet its terms. See Gonzalez v. Claywell, 82 So. 3d 1000, 1001 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (citing Attorneys’ Title Ins. Fund, Inc. v. Gorka, 36 So. 3d 646, 649 (Fla. 2010)). The Gonzalez case concerned a proposal for settlement from a plaintiff to a defendant in a negligence case. Id. at 1000. By the terms of hi…
Authorities Cited
- Boston OLD Colony Ins. Co. v. Gutierrez, 386 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1980)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 932 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 2006)
- Attorneys' Title Ins. Fund, Inc. v. Gorka, 36 So. 3d 646 (Fla. 2010)
- Kristopher D. Lucas v. Donald M. and Kathy M. Calhoun, 813 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Gonzalez v. Claywell, 24 So. 3d 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)