Case Name: AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE, a foreign corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN YACHTS LTD., a foreign corporation, Continental Insurance Company, a foreign corporation, Boat/ US, Inc., a foreign corporation, a.k.a. Boat America Corporation, d.b.a. Boatus, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-09-02
Citations: 291 F. App'x 305
Docket Number: No. 08-11288
Parties: AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE, a foreign corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN YACHTS LTD., a foreign corporation, Continental Insurance Company, a foreign corporation, Boat/ US, Inc., a foreign corporation, a.k.a. Boat America Corporation, d.b.a. Boatus, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 291
Pages: 305–306

Head Matter:
AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE, a foreign corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN YACHTS LTD., a foreign corporation, Continental Insurance Company, a foreign corporation, Boat/ US, Inc., a foreign corporation, a.k.a. Boat America Corporation, d.b.a. Boatus, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-11288
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Sept. 2, 2008.
Daniel Michael Bachi, Sellars, Marion & Bachi, P.A., West Palm Bch, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
David L. Ross, Mark A. Salky, Julissa Rodriguez, Elliot H. Scherker, Greenberg & Traurig P.A., Miami, FL, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before BARRETT, MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Auto-Owners Insurance appeals a final judgment granting attorneys' fees and costs in favor of American Yacht Ltd. and Continental Insurance Company in the amount of $481,957.23. We find no merit to the three issues raised by Auto-Owners on appeal.
First, the district court did not err in concluding that the Joint Proposal for Settlement was not ambiguous simply because Auto-Owners was required to accept the amount offered by both American and Continental. Moreover, we find that the releases attached to the joint offer were correctly found to have been stated with particularity and are enforceable.
Second, Auto-Owners contends that the Joint Proposal was ambiguous because it referenced both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 and Florida Statute, Section 768.79. We agree with the district court that there was no ambiguity here. Rule 68 does not preempt Section 768.79 and as such, Section 768.79 is controlling in this case. Furthermore, the Joint Proposal complies with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442.
Finally, we find no error in the district court's factual determination that the attorneys' fees awarded to American and Continental were reasonable and non-duplieative.
AFFIRMED.
. Because this court has denied Auto-Owners' petition for rehearing en banc as to its claim under the doctrine of equitable subrogation, its argument that American and Continental would not be entitled to attorneys' fees if we reversed the district court's granting of summary judgment is moot.