EFTA00679835.pdf

Haddad. Tonja 6/2612014 For Educational Use Only Jones v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 68 So.3d 422 (2011) 36 Fla. L Weekly D1966 evaluated terms and conditions of offer. West's 68 So.3d 422 F.S.A. § 768.79. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. Cases that cite this headnote Jeffrey JONES, Appellant, v. PUBLIX SUPERMARKETS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee. 121 Costs No. 4D10-2292. J Sept. 7, 2011. 0-Offer of judgment in general Costs 4i0Effect of offer ofjudgment or pretrial deposit or tender Synopsis Background: Patron brought action against retail store It is the preferred practice to set forth the terms alleging that he was seriously injured when a flag pole fell of a release accompanying a proposal for from the ceiling and struck him. Following jury trial, the settlement under offer of judgment rule with Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, particularity, either within the body of the Edward H. Fine, J., entered judgment in favor of patron. proposal or by attaching the form of the release. Store appealed. West's F.S.A. § 768.79. Cases that cite this headnote (Holding:) The District Court of Appeal, Streitfeld, Jeffrey R., Associate Judge, held that store was liable for patron's attorney fees on the basis of offer of judgment rule. Attorneys and Law Firms Reversed and remanded. *422 Marlene S. Reiss of Marlene S. Reiss, P.A., Miami, for appellant. Edward G. Guedes and Laura K. Wendell of Weiss, West Headnotes (2) Scrota Helfman Pastoriza Cole & Boniske, P.L., Coral Gables, for appellee. Itl Costs Opinion -' Effect of offer ofjudgment or pretrial deposit or tender STREITFELD, JEFFREY R., Associate Judge. Store was liable for patron's attorney fees in patron's personal injury action on the basis of In this appeal from the trial court's final order denying offer of judgment rule, where patron made offer Plaintiff/Appellant's Motion for Attorneys Fees pursuant under rule to settle case for $150,000, offer of to section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2007) and Fla. R. Civ. judgment was sufficiently clear, judgment was P. 1.442, we once again are faced with resolving issues entered for approximately $278,000 following arising from alleged ambiguities in the terms of a release jury verdict, and there were no other claims or contained within a proposal for settlement. potentially liable related parties, leaving no ambiguities so that store could have fully In his Complaint filed on October 15, 2007, Jones alleged VVestlawNext' © 2014 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 EFTA00679835  Haddad, Tonja 6/26/2014 For Educational Use Only Jones v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 68 So.3d 422 (2011) 36 Fla. L. Weekly D1966 that he was seriously injured when a flag pole fell from Similar ambiguities existed in Palm Beach Polo Holdings, the ceiling and struck him while shopping at Publix on Inc. v. The Village of Wellington, 904 So.2d 652 (Fla. 4th August 19, 2006. On February 20, 2008, Jones served a DCA 2005), where the general release attached to the proposal for settlement pursuant to the above named proposal arguably could be interpreted to release all statute and rule for $150,000. The proposal provided in claims that might exist between the parties, and there was part that "This proposal for settlement encompasses all at least one other action pending between the parties at the damages and expenses associated with this claim even time the defendant made its proposal. those damages or expenses as to which collateral source payments have been made," and that Jones "will execute a While State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance. Co. v. full release of liability in favor of Publix Supermarkets, Nichols, 932 So.2d 1067 (Fla.2006) announces a bright Inc., a Florida Corporation and it's [sic] affiliated line test that requires particularity when addressing a insurance company, and a Stipulation for Voluntary release as a condition, it is important to place that holding Dismissal." No further summary of the release was within the context of the facts of that case. State Farm's included, nor was a copy of the proposed release attached proposal to settle Nichols' PIP claim included the to the proposal. requirement that Nichols execute a general release that could be construed to include his pending, separate UIM The case was tried in January, 2010, and the jury awarded claim arising out of the same accident. Jones $278,348.61. The *423 verdict included awards of $56,723.61 for past medical expenses, $60,000 for future In In this case, there are no other claims, and there are no medical expenses, and $26,625 for lost wages. The other potentially liable related parties. Therefore, under economic damages alone therefore totaled approximately these facts and circumstances, the release provisions of $143,000. In addition, the jury awarded $85,000 in past Jones' proposal were sufficiently clear, "leaving no pain and suffering damages, and $50,000 for future pain ambiguities so that the recipient can fully evaluate its and suffering damages. Final Judgment on the verdict was terms and conditions." State Farm, 932 So.2d at 1079; entered on February I, 2010. Papouras, 940 So.2d at 483; Polo Holdings, 904 So.2d at 653. The trial court, while noting that "everybody understands who is being released and who isn't", concluded that he 121 We continue to observe that it is the preferred practice was constrained by our decision in Papouras v. Bellsouth to set forth the terms of a release with particularity, either Telecommunications., Inc. 940 So.2d 479 (Fla. 4th DCA within the body of the proposal or by attaching the form 2006), and denied Jones' motion because the release was of the release. However, based upon the specific facts of neither summarized nor attached to the proposal for this case, we reverse and remand for further proceedings settlement. Our review of this denial is de novo. consistent with this opinion. Papouras, 940 So.2d at 480. Reversed and Remanded for proceedings consistent with In those cases where the release provisions contained this opinion. within a proposal for settlement were deemed to be ambiguous, either there existed additional claims by and between the parties, or other related parties remained potentially liable and those claims might not be extinguished by the release. STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ., concur. Papouras involved an auto accident involving a Bellsouth Parallel Citations driver. The proposal and release were ambiguous because the proposal and release did not include the driver. 36 Ha. L. Weekly DI966 End of Document C 2014 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. WestlawNexi © 2014 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 EFTA00679836  Haddad, Tonja 6/26/2014 For Educational Use Only Jones v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 68 So.3d 422 (2011) 36 Fla. L. Weekly D1966 WestlawNexi © 2014 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3 EFTA00679837