MAX TAFEL SELMAN,

v.

PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed February 16, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-0299 Lower Tribunal Nos. 18-28554 CC & 20-266 AP ________________

Max Tafel Selman, Appellant,

vs.

Progressive American Insurance Company, Appellee.

An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Elijah A. Levitt, Judge.

George A. David, P.A., and George A. David, for appellant.

Kubicki Draper, P.A., and Valerie Dondero and Barbara E. Fox, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and SCALES and GORDO, JJ.

SCALES, J.

2

Max Tafel Selman (“Insured”), the plaintiff below, appeals from a July 22, 2020 order granting Progressive American Insurance Company’s (“Progressive”) post-judgment motion that Progressive labeled its “Motion to Enforce Settlement and Compliance with the Court’s March 20, 2020 Order” (“Progressive’s Motion”). The trial court entered the challenged order having previously entered a March 20, 2020 final judgment that had reserved jurisdiction to further enforce the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement. We reverse because, by adjudicating Progressive’s Motion and entering the challenged order, the trial court exceeded the limited continuing jurisdiction the trial court had reserved in its final judgment.

I.

BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In November 2018, Insured was involved in an automobile accident that totaled his vehicle that was insured by Progressive. While Progressive agreed that the loss was covered under its policy and that there was a total loss, the parties disagreed as to the value of the loss. On December 21, 2018, Insured filed this first party insurance action against Progressive in the Miami-Dade County county court, seeking policy benefits for the covered loss. A year later, at a subsequent court-ordered appraisal, the parties reached a settlement agreement wherein the parties agreed only that the actual cash value of Insured’s vehicle was $10,834

Following the trial court’s entry of the final judgment, Progressive neither filed a Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530 motion for rehearing of the final judgment nor sought to appeal the final judgment. Instead,

Following a hearing on Progressive’s Motion, on July 22, 2020, the trial court entered the challenged order requiring Insured to repay $10,031.17 of the $10,834 amount that Progressive had paid to Insured pursuant to the final judgment. After the lower court denied Insured’s motion for rehearing, Insured timely appealed the challenged order.

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

1 The $10,031.17 figure satisfied the lien on Insured’s vehicle.

III.

ANALYSIS

While Insured makes several arguments on appeal, we address the dispositive argument of whether the trial court, in its final judgment, retained the jurisdiction to adjudicate Progressive’s Motion and grant the relief contained in the challenged order. “When a trial court approves a settlement agreement and retains jurisdiction to enforce its terms, the trial court has the jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement.” Platinum Luxury Auctions, LLC, 227 So. 3d at 688. “[T]he extent of the court’s continuing jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement is circumscribed by the terms of that agreement.” Id. (quoting Paulucci v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 842 So. 2d 797, 803 (Fla. 2003)). Where the trial court grants relief beyond the terms of the settlement agreement, the court

2 To the extent Progressive claims that the parties’ written settlement agreement did not constitute the full agreement in light of events that transpired subsequent to its execution by the parties’ respective counsel, Progressive should have timely moved for rehearing of the final judgment in the lower court and, if necessary, appealed from the final judgment. Progressive did neither.

3 Expressing no opinion on the merits of any such motion or claim, we note that our decision is without prejudice to Progressive timely filing a Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540 motion below or pursuing a separate recoupment action against Insured.