Court Opinion

ID: 9402145
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-15 15:05:43.460185+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:57.895865
License: Public Domain

Supreme Court of Florida
                             ____________

                          No. SC2021-0175
                            ____________

                      BRINDA COATES, etc.,
                           Petitioner,

                                  vs.

              R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY,
                         Respondent.

                           June 15, 2023

GROSSHANS, J.

     Today, we decide a recurring issue of law regarding Florida’s

offer-of-judgment statute, specifically whether a party must prevail

in a proceeding to be entitled to fees under the statute.

See § 768.79, Fla. Stat. (2022). We hold that the statute does not

impose this requirement and, thus, is not a prevailing-party statute.

                           BACKGROUND

     Petitioner Brinda Coates sued Respondent R.J. Reynolds

Tobacco Company (RJR) seeking damages for the wrongful death of

her sister, Lois Stuckey. Before trial, Coates served RJR with two

proposals for settlement under section 768.79—the first for
$75,000, and the second for $749,000. RJR did not accept either

offer.

         Following trial, a jury awarded Coates $300,000 in

compensatory damages and $16,000,000 in punitive damages.

After reducing the compensatory damages award based on the

jury’s finding of comparative fault, the trial court entered judgment

for Coates in the amount of $16,150,000.

         On appeal, the Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the

punitive damages award as excessive and remanded for remittitur

or, in the alternative, a new trial solely on punitive damages. R.J.

Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Coates, 308 So. 3d 1068, 1071, 1076 (Fla.

5th DCA 2020). It then certified a question of great public

importance concerning punitive damages. Id. at 1076.

         We accepted review, rephrased the certified question, and

ultimately approved the Fifth District’s decision. See Coates v. R.J.

Reynolds Tobacco Co., 48 Fla. L. Weekly S1, S1-S5 (Fla. Jan. 5,

2023) (holding that the punitive damages award was excessive

under Florida statutory law). After issuing that decision, our focus

shifted to Coates’s motion for attorney’s fees incurred in this review

proceeding. She claimed entitlement to these fees based on RJR’s

                                    -2-
rejection of her offers of judgment. Recognizing that Coates had not

prevailed here, we requested briefing on whether the offer-of-

judgment statute requires the moving party to prevail in the

appellate proceeding. With the benefit of this briefing, we now hold

that the offer-of-judgment statute is not a prevailing-party statute.

In light of this holding, we provisionally grant Coates’s motion for

reasonable attorney’s fees, conditioned upon the trial court’s finding

of entitlement and determination of amount.

                              ANALYSIS

     Our ruling on Coates’s motion depends solely on the meaning

of the offer-of-judgment statute. 1 In deciding whether this statute

is a prevailing-party statute, we apply the supremacy-of-the-

text principle, recognizing that “[t]he words of a governing text are of

paramount concern, and what they convey, in their context, is what

the text means.” Levy v. Levy, 326 So. 3d 678, 681 (Fla. 2021)

(alteration in original) (quoting Page v. Deutsche Bank Tr. Co.

Americas, 308 So. 3d 953, 958 (Fla. 2020)). Consistent with this

     1. Statutory interpretation presents a purely legal issue. Lab.
Corp. of Am. v. Davis, 339 So. 3d 318, 323 (Fla. 2022) (applying de
novo review in determining meaning of statute (citing Lopez v. Hall,
233 So. 3d 451, 453 (Fla. 2018))).

                                 -3-
rule, we do not add words to a statute in the guise of interpreting it.

See Statler v. State, 349 So. 3d 873, 879 (Fla. 2022).

     With these foundational principles in mind, we turn to the

statute at issue. Section 768.79 provides in part:

     In any civil action for damages filed in the courts of this
     state, if a defendant files an offer of judgment which is
     not accepted by the plaintiff within 30 days, the
     defendant shall be entitled to recover reasonable costs
     and attorney’s fees incurred . . . from the date of filing of
     the offer if the judgment is one of no liability or the
     judgment obtained by the plaintiff is at least 25 percent
     less than such offer . . . . If a plaintiff files a demand for
     judgment which is not accepted by the defendant within
     30 days and the plaintiff recovers a judgment in an
     amount at least 25 percent greater than the offer, she or
     he shall be entitled to recover reasonable costs and
     attorney’s fees incurred from the date of the filing of the
     demand. If rejected, neither an offer nor demand is
     admissible in subsequent litigation, except for pursuing
     the penalties of this section.

§ 768.79(1) (emphasis added).

     Two portions of the text are inconsistent with RJR’s argument

that section 768.79 is a prevailing-party statute. First, the statute

itself refers to its fee awards and costs as “penalties.” Id. (“If

rejected, neither an offer nor demand is admissible in subsequent

litigation, except for pursuing the penalties of this section.”). In line

with this text, Florida courts have uniformly characterized section

                                   -4-
768.79 as a penalty statute. See Cassedy v. Wood, 263 So. 3d 300,

303 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019); Est. of Sweeney v. Washington, 327 So. 3d

396, 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021); Cent. Motor Co. v. Shaw, 3 So. 3d 367,

369 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); 22nd Century Props., LLC v. FPH Props.,

LLC, 160 So. 3d 135, 142 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015); UCF Athletics Ass’n

v. Plancher, 121 So. 3d 616, 618 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013).

     Second, the statute contemplates fee awards to nonprevailing

litigants. Specifically, subsection (1) of the statute provides:

     [I]f a defendant files an offer of judgment which is not
     accepted by the plaintiff within 30 days, the defendant
     shall be entitled to recover reasonable costs and
     attorney’s fees . . . if the judgment is one of no liability or
     the judgment obtained by the plaintiff is at least 25
     percent less than such offer . . . .

§ 768.79(1) (emphasis added).

     Thus, the text of the offer-of-judgment statute contemplates a

situation where the defendant is entitled to fees even if the plaintiff

prevails on the most significant issues at trial and ultimately

recovers a substantial judgment. It is not reasonable to hold that

the Legislature created a prevailing-party requirement when the

statute’s text allows for awards to litigants who do not prevail.

                                  -5-
     Consistent with this analysis, we further note that the offer-of-

judgment statute differs from other statutes that include a

prevailing-party requirement. Compare § 59.46, Fla. Stat. (2022)

(“[A]ny provision of a statute or of a contract . . . providing for the

payment of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party shall be construed

to include . . . attorney’s fees to the prevailing party on appeal.”

(emphasis added)), § 57.105(7), Fla. Stat. (2022) (“If a contract

contains a provision allowing attorney’s fees to a party when he or

she is required to take any action to enforce the contract, the court

may also allow reasonable attorney’s fees to the other party when

that party prevails in any action, whether as plaintiff or

defendant, with respect to the contract.” (emphasis added)), and

§ 627.428(1), Fla. Stat. (2022) 2 (“[I]n the event of an appeal in which

the insured or beneficiary prevails, the appellate court shall [award

reasonable appellate attorney’s fees.]” (emphasis added)), with

§ 768.79 (providing for attorney’s fees if a reasonable proposal for

judgment is rejected and the party making the proposal recovers a

      2. This statute has since been repealed. See ch. 2023-15,
§ 11, Laws of Fla. (effective date of March 24, 2023).

                                  -6-
qualifying judgment). Had the Legislature intended for section

768.79 to be a prevailing-party statute, it could have adopted

similar language to the prevailing-party statutes mentioned above;

but it did not.

     Reflecting those textual differences, the offer-of-judgment

statute operates to penalize a party who refuses to accept a good-

faith, reasonable proposal for settlement as reflected in the ensuing

final judgment. § 768.79(1). The statute has this effect even if the

party seeking fees does not prevail at trial or in appellate

proceedings, but is otherwise entitled to fees pursuant to the offer-

of-judgment statute.

     We do not share RJR’s concern that our interpretation of the

offer-of-judgment statute will result in a flood of frivolous appeals.

Under the statute, a judge can only award “reasonable” fees.

§ 768.79(1), (7)-(8). When making a reasonableness determination,

the judge considers a nonexhaustive list of factors, including the

merit of the claim, the closeness of questions of fact and law, and

the amount of additional delay if litigation is prolonged.

§ 768.79(8)(b). The judge is also expressly authorized to consider

any other relevant criteria. Id. We stress that nothing in our

                                 -7-
opinion prevents a party from challenging the reasonableness of

fees by raising all relevant factors—including the frivolous nature of

an appeal. However, we decline to hold that the outcome of an

appeal is entirely dispositive as to the reasonableness of the

appellate fees incurred.

                            CONCLUSION

     Based on the analysis above, we hold that the text of section

768.79 shows that it is not a prevailing-party statute. In light of the

fact that Coates obtained a judgment—which has been affirmed in

part—we provisionally grant her motion for reasonable appellate

attorney’s fees. The amount shall be determined by the trial court,

conditioned on its finding, at the end of the case, that Coates is

entitled to attorney’s fees under a valid proposal for settlement filed

under section 768.79.

     It is so ordered.

MUÑIZ, C.J., and CANADY, COURIEL, and FRANCIS, JJ., concur.
LABARGA, J., concurs in result.
SASSO, J., did not participate.

Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal
     Direct Conflict of Decisions/Certified Great Public Importance

     Fifth District – Case No. 5D19-2549

                                 -8-
     (Orange County)

Jonathan A. Martin and Courtney Brewer of Bishop & Mills, PLLC,
Tallahassee, Florida, and John S. Mills of Bishop & Mills, PLLC,
Jacksonville, Florida,

     for Petitioner

Troy A. Fuhrman and Marie A. Borland of Hill Ward Henderson,
Tampa, Florida; Jason T. Burnette and Brian Charles Lea of Jones
Day, Atlanta, Georgia, and Charles A. Morse of Jones Day, New
York, New York,

     for Respondent

                              -9-