Our Latest News And Updates

Proposal For Settlement

CENTRAL FLORIDA MEDICAL AND CHIROPRACTIC CENTER A/A/O RONALD SEALEY vs PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 5D21-29 (Fla 5th DCA 2021)

“Unlike other rules of civil procedure, Rule 1.442 clearly specifies the cases to which it applies. Despite the general statement of Rule 1.010, Rule 1.442 very clearly and unambiguously states that it “applies to all proposals for settlement authorized by Florida law.” As set forth above, Florida law is clear that proposals for settlement are authorized in PIP cases filed in small claims court. Therefore, by its own terms, Rule 1.442 would apply in this
case. Even if Rule 7.020 could be read to conflict with or contradict this conclusion, Rule 1.442 resolves any such conflict: “This rule . . . supersedes all other provisions of the rules and statutes that may be inconsistent with this rule.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442(a). Because the rule by its very terms applies to actions filed in small claims court, we find that Progressive was not required to specifically invoke Rule 1.442 in order for its proposal for settlement to be enforceable.”

This was a $76,000 attorney fee award for Progressive. See CPLR 3220.; Kirchoff-Consigli Constr. Mgt., LLC v Dharmakaya, Inc., 186 A.D.3d 585, 586 (2d Dept. 2020)