Court Opinion

ID: 9948074
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-06 15:04:08.531901+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:29:03.691461
License: Public Domain

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
                       SECOND DISTRICT

                     ADVANTAGE LIMOUSINE, LLC,

                               Appellant,

                                    v.

         THEODORE J. KOUTSOS; OLYMPUS LIMO, INC.;
  KEITH M. SIMMONS, JR.; and SIMINOLE TRANSPORTATION, INC.,

                                Appellees.

                              No. 2D22-257

                             March 6, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Emily A.
Peacock, Judge.

Michael R. Carey and Stephen J. Bagge of Carey, O'Malley, Whitaker,
Mueller, Roberts & Smith, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.

Daniel J. Fleming and Kevin Tragesser of Johnson Pope Bokor Ruppel &
Burns, LLP, Tampa, for Appellees Koutsos and Olympus.

No appearance for remaining Appellees.

SILBERMAN, Judge.
     Advantage Limousine, LLC, appeals the final judgment entered
against it and in favor of Theodore J. Koutsos and Olympus Limo, Inc.,
disposing of Advantage's claims for aiding and abetting a breach of
fiduciary duty and tortious interference with a contract. We affirm that
judgment without comment. Advantage also appeals a separate
judgment awarding attorney's fees and costs in favor of Koutsos and
Olympus pursuant to their proposals for settlement. We reverse the
judgment for fees and costs because the proposals for settlement were
ambiguous.
     A detailed telling of the facts of this case is unnecessary for
purposes of this opinion. However, relevant to this opinion, Advantage
sued Koutsos and Olympus for aiding and abetting a third party's breach
of a fiduciary duty and for tortious interference with a contract. Prior to
trial, Koutsos and Olympus submitted separate, substantively identical
proposals for settlement to Advantage. Advantage did not accept the
proposals for settlement, and the case proceeded to trial. At the close of
Advantage's case-in-chief, Koutsos and Olympus moved for a directed
verdict. The trial court granted the motion and entered judgment in their
favor. Koutsos and Olympus then filed a motion to tax costs as the
prevailing parties and for attorney's fees and costs pursuant to their
proposals for settlement. The trial court granted the motion and entered
judgment for fees and costs against Advantage.
     We review "a party's entitlement to attorney's fees pursuant to
section 768.79[, Florida Statutes (2020),] and [Florida Rule of Civil
Procedure] 1.442 de novo." Allen v. Nunez, 258 So. 3d 1207, 1211 (Fla.
2018). Likewise, whether a proposal for settlement is ambiguous is
reviewed de novo. Alamo Fin., L.P. v. Mazoff, 112 So. 3d 626, 628 (Fla.
4th DCA 2013). Proposals for settlement shall "state with particularity
any relevant conditions." Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442(c)(2)(C). "[T]his
requirement of particularity is fundamental to the purpose underlying
the statute and rule." State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols (Nichols
II), 932 So. 2d 1067, 1078 (Fla. 2006) (quoting Nichols v. State Farm. Mut.
(Nichols I), 851 So. 2d 742, 746 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)). As Judge

                                      2
Casanueva long ago noted for this court, "Proposals for settlement are
intended to end judicial labor, not create more." Lucas v. Calhoun, 813
So. 2d 971, 973 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); see also Nichols II, 932 So. 2d at
1078 (same).
      Rule 1.442 "aims to prevent ambiguity, not breadth." Nichols II,
932 So. 2d at 1079. "[A] summary of [a] proposed release can be
sufficient to satisfy rule 1.442, as long as it eliminates any reasonable
ambiguity about its scope." Tower Hill Signature Ins. Co. v. Kushch, 335
So. 3d 743, 752 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (quoting Nichols II, 932 So. 2d at
1079). A proposal for settlement "must 'be sufficiently clear and definite
to allow the offeree to make an informed decision without needing
clarification.' " Id. at 748 (quoting Nichols II, 932 So. 2d at 1079).
      In Tower Hill, the Fourth District concluded that a confidentiality
agreement contained within a proposal for settlement was not ambiguous
because it "specified that it related to the facts and terms of the release,
and documents or information provided by the parties related to the
claim and litigation." Id. at 752. There, the confidentiality provision
required that
      the parties agree to maintain the facts and terms of this
      Release as confidential, and documents or information
      provided by the parties related to the Claim and Litigation,
      with the exception of any pleadings or documents filed with
      the court and to the extent that law, ordinance, or governing
      body requires, shall also be confidential.
Id. The court concluded that "the proposal for settlement and the
confidentiality provision did not extend to anything outside of this claim
and litigation." Id.
      The proposals for settlement here are distinguishable from the
provision in Tower Hill. The separate proposals for settlement by

                                      3
Koutsos and Olympus, as the defendants, to Advantage, as the plaintiff,
provided in pertinent part:
     This settlement proposal is conditioned upon execution of a
     confidential settlement agreement and general release of all
     claims by Plaintiff of and from any and all claims, demands,
     actions and causes of action of every kind, whatsoever, and
     including, but without limitation of the foregoing, all liability
     for damages, costs, expenses and compensation of any kind,
     nature or description now existing or which may hereafter
     arise, known or unknown, permanent or otherwise, as set
     forth by the claims in Plaintiff's Complaint against
     Defendant[s], filed in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth
     Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County, Florida, bearing case
     number 2016-CA-007949; and within ten (10) days of
     receiving the settlement sum, Plaintiff will file a Voluntary
     Notice of Dismissal with Prejudice as to Defendant[s] for all
     counts as they pertain to Defendant[s], as set forth in the
     Complaint filed by Plaintiff in the above captioned case
     number.
(Emphasis added.) Unlike the proposal for settlement in Tower Hill,
which set forth the terms regarding confidentiality, the proposals for
settlement here required execution of a separate confidential settlement
agreement of which the terms were not specified. No agreement was
attached to the proposals, and there is no description or summary
contained in the proposals as to the terms of any such agreement. Thus,
the proposals for settlement were not "sufficiently clear and definite to
allow [Advantage] to make an informed decision without needing
clarification." See Nichols II, 932 So. 2d at 1079; Tower Hill, 335 So. 3d
at 748. We also note that nothing in the record indicates that Koutsos
and Olympus ever submitted a proposed confidentiality agreement to
Advantage.
     In summary, the proposals for settlement here are ambiguous and
do not comply with rule 1.442. The trial court erred by granting Koutsos
and Olympus's motion for attorney's fees and costs based upon
                                     4
Advantage's nonacceptance of their proposals for settlement. As a result,
we reverse the final judgment of taxable costs and attorney's fees.
     Affirmed in part; reversed in part.

CASANUEVA and SMITH, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.

                                      5