Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court Examines Validity of Danis Offers

By Paris T. Baker

In Claudia Rodriguez et al v. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company 2020-007735-CA-01 January 27, 2025, the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court held the Danis offer served by the insurer was valid. The insureds did not obtain a judgment greater than the offer, and thus the insureds are limited to the amount of attorneys’ fees and costs as of the date of the Danis offer, where the insureds accepted a proposal for settlement which was equal to the amount outlined in the previous Danis letter.

The insurer submitted a Danis letter to the insureds for $50,000 for the indemnity portion of the claim in addition to a payment of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to be determined at a later date. The Danis letter also carved out a release of the insureds’ potential bad faith claims. The offer was not accepted by the insureds. Thirteen months later, the insurer submitted a proposal for settlement (PFS) for $50,000 which included payment for reasonable attorney fees and costs. The insureds accepted this offer.

Thereafter, the Court allowed the parties to file a supplemental memorandum of law to determine the effect the Danis opinion had on the facts of this case. The insurer argued the insureds are limited to the amount of reasonable fees and costs incurred as of the date of the Danis letter because they did not obtain a judgment greater than the offer made in the Danis letter. The insureds argued the Danis letter and PFS are not mirror image offers since the PFS did not include a release of a potential bad faith claim.

Relying on Danis Indus. Corp. v. Ground Improvement Techniques, 645 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 1994), the Court held the rationale behind the Supreme Court’s ruling was to create a fee-stopping mechanism and placed an emphasis on the final judgment. In the instant case, the Court found the insureds did not beat or defeat the Danis offer or obtain a judgment or settlement greater than it. Instead, the insureds obtained $50,000 by accepting the PFS, which was the same amount offered in the Danis letter thirteen months prior. The Court emphasized that the retainer of the bad faith claim is irrelevant for the purpose of the Danis analysis because it is not applicable in a final judgment in this case. Florida law is well settled that an insured cannot bring a bad faith claim until after the resolution of an underlying claim in favor of the insured. The Court further relied on Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Desalvo, 748 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 1999), which applies a five-step analysis to determine if the judgment obtained by the insureds is more than the Danis letter. After applying the analysis, the Court found the Danis letter ($50,000) plus the fees incurred at the time was equivalent to the PFS ($50,000) plus the fees incurred at the time of the Danis letter. As a result, the Court found the Danis offer valid, and thus limited the attorneys’ fees and costs to the amount incurred at the date of the Danis letter.