Case Name: D.A.B. CONSTRUCTORS, INC., and Cornell B. Cox, Appellant, v. John P. OLIVER, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2005-10-21
Citations: 914 So. 2d 462
Docket Number: No. 5D04-3661
Parties: D.A.B. CONSTRUCTORS, INC., and Cornell B. Cox, Appellant, v. John P. OLIVER, Appellee.
Judges: MONACO, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 914
Pages: 462–467

Head Matter:
D.A.B. CONSTRUCTORS, INC., and Cornell B. Cox, Appellant, v. John P. OLIVER, Appellee.
No. 5D04-3661.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Oct. 21, 2005.
Bureus Wayne Argo of Weiner & Argo, P.A., Ocala, for Appellant.
Jennifer R. McRae and T. Bradley McRae of McRae & McRae, Lake City, for Appellee.

Opinion:
SHARP, W., J.
D.A.B. Constructors, Inc., and Cornell Cox, the defendants below, appeal from the denial of their motion for attorney's fees based upon their joint proposals of settlement made to John Oliver and his wife Teresa Oliver, the plaintiffs below, which the trial court ruled were invalid. In light of the extremely broad language in the Florida Supreme Court's recent opinion in Lamb v. Matetzschk, 906 So.2d 1037 (Fla.2005), we are constrained to affirm the trial court's ruling.
The facts in this case are not in dispute. On July 20, 1999, Cox and John Oliver were involved in a motor vehicle collision. Cox, an employee of D.A.B., was driving D.A.B.'s vehicle within the scope of his employment. Oliver filed a single count personal injury complaint against D.A.B. and Cox, jointly and severally. The complaint was later amended to add Teresa Oliver as a co-plaintiff, added a count for loss of consortium and again asserted joint and several liability.
On November 5, 2001, the defendants made a joint proposal for settlement to John to settle all claims raised in the action. On the same day, the defendants made a joint proposal for settlement to Teresa to settle all claims raised in the action. Each proposal addressed all of the matters required under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442, except that neither apportioned the amount of the offer between the defendants. Neither proposal was accepted.
On April 9, 2002, the Olivers filed a second amended complaint. On December 5, 2002, the defendants again made joint proposals for settlement to each of the Olivers. Each proposal sought to settle all claims raised in the action and otherwise complied with the requirements of rule 1.442, but did not apportion the amount of the offer between the defendants. Neither proposal was accepted.
On January 16, 2003, the defendants again filed joint proposals for settlement. Once again, neither proposal was accepted.
The case proceeded to trial and resulted in a directed verdict in favor of the defendants. The trial judge reserved ruling on the defendants' entitlement to attorney's fees pending resolution of the appeal. This court subsequently affirmed the directed verdict. Oliver v. D.A.B. Constructors, Inc., 876 So.2d 575 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
The trial judge later heard argument of counsel regarding the defendants' entitlement to attorney's fees, and denied the motion after finding the proposals for settlement were invalid. The judge concluded the proposals were invalid because they did not comply with section 768.79, Florida Statutes, Rule 1.442 or the Florida Supreme Court's holding in Willis Shaw Express, Inc. v. Hilyer Sod, Inc., 849 So.2d 276 (Fla.2003), as interpreted by this court in Matetzschk v. Lamb, 849 So.2d 1141 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).
Section 768.79, Florida's offer of judgment statute, is implemented by rule 1.442. Specifically, rule 1.442(c)(3) provides:
A proposal may be made by or to any party or parties and by or to any combination of parties properly identified in the proposal. A joint proposal shall state the amount and terms attributable to each party.
The language must be strictly construed because the statute and rule are in derogation of the common law rule that each party pay its own fees. See, e.g., Major League Baseball v. Morsani, 790 So.2d 1071, 1077-78 (Fla.2001).
In Lamb v. Matetzschk, 906 So.2d 1037 (Fla.2005), the Florida Supreme Court re cently reviewed this court's decision in Matetzschk which had certified conflict with Barnes v. The Kellogg Co., 846 So.2d 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Barnes involved the same scenario as this case — two defendants, jointly liable, who made an undifferentiated offer to one plaintiff. The Second District concluded that such an offer was valid, finding that rule 1.442 did not prohibit a joint offer of settlement when the settlement is attributed jointly and severally to the defendants. This holding was in conflict with our holding in Matetzschk that a joint offer of settlement must differentiate the amount attributable to each party, even where one party is only liable vicariously.
Although the facts in Barnes had been misstated in our Matetzschk case, the supreme court stated the facts correctly. The majority opinion then approved our holding and disapproved Barnes:
As we have already stated, the plain language of rule 1.442(c)(3) mandates that a joint proposal for settlement differentiate between the parties, even when one party's alleged liability is purely vicarious. Thus, to the extent that Barnes holds otherwise, we disapprove of that decision.
*
Rule 1.442(c)(3) expressly requires that a joint proposal of settlement made to two or more parties be differentiated. The rule makes no distinction between multiple plaintiffs and multiple defendants, nor does it make any distinction based on the theory of liability. Therefore, we approve the decision of the Fifth District in Matetzschk and disapprove of the decision of the Second District in Barnes to the extent it is inconsistent with this opinion, (emphasis added)
906 So.2d at 1042.
Based on the emphasized language above, it appears that a joint proposal for settlement must differentiate between the defendants even when one defendant's liability is vicarious only. In her specially concurring opinion, Chief Justice Pariente questioned why this differentiation is needed when one defendant is vicariously liable and suggests the rule be changed. As Chief Justice Par-iente observed:
. in other cases where the liability of one defendant is based on vicarious liability and the issue of vicarious liability is undisputed, apportionment of the offer between the active tortfeasor and the vicarious tortfeasor is problematic because the liability of both defendants is not apportioned but is coextensive.
906 So.2d at 1044.
In our opinion, it makes no sense to require that an offer be differentiated when the offer originates from one plaintiff to two defendants, one of whom is vicariously liable or jointly or severally liable (the Matetzschk case) and also when an offer is made to one plaintiff from two defendants, one of whom is jointly and severally liable or vicariously liable (the Barnes case and this case). Logic and common sense lead to the conclusion that neither need be differentiated. But logic and common sense also indicate the two scenarios should be resolved the same.
AFFIRMED.
MONACO, J., concurs.
PETERSON, J., dissents with opinion.
. Rule 1.442(c)(2) provides that a proposal shall: (A) name the party or parties making the proposal and the party or parties to whom the proposal is being made; (B) identify the claim or claims the proposal is attempting to resolve; (C) state with particularity any relevant conditions; (D) state the total amount of the proposal and state with particularity all nonmonetary terms of the proposal; (E) state with particularity the amount proposed to settle a claim for punitive damages, if any; (F) state whether the proposal includes attorneys' fees and whether attorneys' fees are part of the legal claim; and (G) include a certificate of service in the form required by rule 1.080(f). Rule 1.422(c)(3) provides that "A proposal may be made by or to any party or parties and by or to any combination of parties properly identified in the proposal. A joint proposal shall state the amount and terms attributable to each party."
. In Heymann v. Free, 913 So.2d 11 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), the First District agreed with Chief Justice Pariente's concern that requiring a unified offer of judgment to apportion fault between equally liable defendants may not promote settlements. In fact, the invalidation of such offers will discourage settlements. Such a result is contrary to the legislative intent to encourage settlements through offers of judgment, as clearly expressed in section 768.79. The First District then called upon die Florida Supreme Court to consider whether rule 1.442 should be amended to align with the legislative intent and to better state the requirements for a valid offer of judgment.