Florida Sixth DCA Rules 2020 Joint Proposal for Settlement Invalid Due to Plaintiffs’ Inability to Independently Accept or Reject
By Kelly M. Vogt
In Gutierrez v. Security First Insurance Co., No. 6D2023-2546, 2025 Fla. App. LEXIS 2457 (Fla. 6th DCA Mar. 28, 2025), the Florida Sixth District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court’s order granting attorneys’ fees and costs to the insurer. Security First had made a joint settlement offer to married plaintiffs Hector Gutierrez and Maria Rodriguez that did not allow either to accept or reject the offer independently. The trial court awarded fees based on that offer, reasoning an exception existed because the plaintiffs shared a close personal and financial relationship. On appeal, the court held that such a joint offer was invalid under Attorneys’ Title Ins. Fund, Inc. v. Gorka.
The appellate court emphasized that under Gorka, a joint settlement proposal must permit each offeree to evaluate and accept the offer separately. It found no exception in Gorka for married plaintiffs or others with close personal or financial relationships. The court stressed that even though Security First’s proposal didn’t explicitly require joint acceptance, it was structured in a way that implicitly did because it offered a single, undivided settlement amount and required both plaintiffs to dismiss their claims together. This structure rendered the offer invalid and unenforceable. Though the Florida Legislature amended Stat. § 768.79 in 2022 to allow joint offers conditioned on mutual acceptance in property insurance cases, Security First acknowledged that the change did not apply retroactively to this 2020 offer. As a result, the court reversed the trial court’s final judgment and remanded with instructions to deny Security First’s motion for entitlement to attorneys’ fees and costs.