The proposal for settlement (PFS) allows either party in a lawsuit to make a settlement offer before trial. If the offer is rejected and the offering party wins the case, they can get their attorney’s fees paid by the other party. But there have been a lot of confusing rules and cases about how to write a PFS and when it’s valid. Some parties have been denied fees because of technical mistakes in their PFS. The rules were changed in 1996 to allow for certain conditions in a PFS, but this has led to more confusion. There’s also confusion about how to calculate the judgment obtained for fees. These issues have caused a lot of legal fights after lawsuits are over. In Florida, there are rules for making settlement offers in legal cases. These rules are meant to encourage parties to settle disputes early and avoid expensive court battles. The rules require that settlement offers clearly state the amount of money being offered and any special conditions. If the other party doesn’t accept the offer and later loses in court, they may have to pay the other party’s attorney fees and costs. These rules were clarified in 1996 to make sure everyone follows the same procedures for making settlement offers. The 1996 amendment to Rule 1.442 allowed for conditions to be included in a Proposal for Settlement (PFS). Before this change, PFSs with conditions were considered invalid by courts. After the amendment, courts upheld PFSs that required the execution of releases, stating that it did not constitute a “condition” of the PFS. This allowed defendants to qualify for attorneys’ fees based on the PFS, even if it included the requirement of a release. In simple terms, in some legal cases where parties are trying to settle a dispute, there can be problems if one party includes extra conditions in the settlement offer. Some courts have said that these extra conditions don’t really matter and are just formalities, but other courts have said that these conditions can make the settlement offer invalid. It’s a bit confusing, but it’s important to be careful about what conditions are included in a settlement offer. The court said that the document PFS was not specific enough about the conditions a plaintiff had to agree to, so it was invalid. However, this does not mean all releases are invalid. It only applies to releasing future lawsuits for things that haven’t happened yet. This makes sense because you can’t put a value on something that hasn’t happened. In a case called USAA Casualty Insurance Co. v. Auffant, the court said that a release in a settlement agreement doesn’t automatically include future claims. So, if someone settles a claim for a car accident, they can’t later sue for new injuries from the same accident. But if they have new claims that haven’t happened yet, the settlement agreement has to specifically say they’re included. So, if you’re signing a settlement agreement, make sure it’s clear about what claims you’re giving up. Attorneys and their clients need to be careful when using a Proposal for Settlement (PFS) in a lawsuit. The wording of the PFS is really important, especially when it comes to including a release of claims. If the release isn’t included or isn’t clear, the PFS could be invalidated. This means the party making the PFS might have to pay the other side’s attorneys’ fees.
One court case showed that a PFS was invalidated because it didn’t clearly state that a release was a condition of the settlement offer. This means the party making the offer had to keep fighting the lawsuit. It’s really important for lawyers to be specific and clear when wording a PFS, and to make sure all the potential claims are covered.
Also, recently the Florida Supreme Court said that certain costs can be included in the total amount of the judgment when deciding who has to pay attorneys’ fees. So it’s important for attorneys to consider all the potential costs when making or responding to a PFS. The Florida Supreme Court decided how to calculate a “judgment obtained” in cases where a settlement offer was rejected. They said it includes damages, attorney fees, and costs that could have been included if a final judgment was entered. There’s also a disagreement among districts about whether joint offers need to be apportioned. Some districts say they do, while others say it’s not necessary. In one case, the court found that not apportioning a joint offer was okay because it didn’t affect the defendant’s rights. In a court case, the Second District found that a settlement offer was invalid because it didn’t specify how much each defendant was offering to settle the case. This meant the plaintiff couldn’t tell how much each defendant was willing to pay. The Florida Supreme Court agreed, saying that each party needs to know how much of a settlement offer applies to them. This means that all joint settlement offers need to specify how much each party is offering to pay. In simple language, there’s a conflict between the purpose of the PFS, which is to solve disputes early, and how some lawyers use it to avoid paying fees. Until the law changes, lawyers need to be careful when writing the PFS to protect their clients. A Proposal for Settlement (PFS) should specify the claims being released and should not include claims for future wrongs. If the PFS only resolves some claims, each claim should be addressed and a release should be required. If lawyers just want a standard release of all claims, they may skip the release language. If there are joint offers, the PFS should address both offerors and offerees. An offeror can get attorney’s fees if the judgment is at least 25% different from the amount in the PFS, unless the PFS was not made in good faith. Some court cases have clarified these rules. This article is written by the Trial Lawyers Section and the Florida Bar, to encourage lawyers to serve the public and improve the justice system. It talks about different attorneys and their areas of expertise.
Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/proposals-for-settlement-more-traps-for-the-unwary/
Leave a Reply