In a case governed by Florida law, a proposal for settlement can be a useful tool to gain settlement leverage, particularly when there is no statutory or contractual fee-shifting provision. At times, though, the cases interpreting Fla. Stat. Section 768.79 and Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442 have imposed such arcane and seemingly inconsistent requirements that drafting a proposal feels like aiming at a moving piñata after spinning around three times blindfolded. Fortunately, recent state and federal decisions confirm that courts should interpret settlement proposals reasonably and enforce them where the statutory requirements are satisfied. This would achieve the statute’s goal—encouraging settlement—rather than breed further litigation. There is, however, one area in which practitioners should remain particularly wary: joint proposals.

In Allen v. Nunez, 43 Fla. L. Weekly S421a (Fla. Oct. 4, 2018), the Florida Supreme Court enforced separate proposals made by a single plaintiff to two codefendants, finding it was sufficiently clear that each defendant could settle independently of the other. Allen was an automobile negligence case. A single plaintiff made identical proposals to the driver and the owner of the vehicle. Each proposal stated that it was made by the plaintiff to the defendant (identified by name), for the purpose of settling claims by the plaintiff against the defendant, in an amount to be paid by the defendant. A final paragraph, however, stated that the proposal was inclusive of “all damages claimed by the plaintiff … ,” without specifying that it was limited to damages claimed against a single defendant. The trial court enforced the proposal. The Fifth DCA reversed, finding the final paragraph created ambiguity as to whether acceptance by only one defendant would resolve the plaintiff’s entire claim against both defendants.