Florida’s Sixth District Court of Appeal Holds That Pre-Offer Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Must Be Included in Determining Entitlement to Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Under Florida’s Offer of Judgment Statute

By Jonathan Wickham

In SFR Servs., LLC v. Dep’t of Fin. Servs. ex rel. Avatar Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2025 Fla. App. LEXIS 3819 (Fla. 6th DCA 2025), Florida’s Sixth District Court of Appeal held that pre-offer attorney’s fees and costs must be included in determining entitlement to attorneys’ fees and costs under Florida’s Offer of Judgment Statute, even if the Offer of Judgment is “exclusive of attorneys’ fees and costs.”

The case arose form a homeowners’ insurance claim following Hurricane Irma. Appellant, SFR Services, LLC performed repairs for the homeowners in exchange for an assignment of insurance benefits. SFR subsequently filed suit against the insurance company and sought “damages, together with interest, costs and attorney’s fees,” under Florida Statutes Section 627.428.

The insurance company served a proposal for settlement[1] to SFR in the amount of $25,000 which included the language “exclusive of all taxable costs and attorneys’ fees.” SFR did not accept the proposal and the case proceeded to trial, where the jury awarded SFR $20,000 in damages. The trial court subsequently reduced the damages amount to $9,000 to account for a $6,000 hurricane deductible and a judgment in accordance with a prior directed verdict motion regarding $5,000 of interior damages.

Both parties then filed competing motions for attorneys’ fees and costs. SFR sought fees and costs under Florida Statutes Section 627.428. (the Florida legislature has since repealed Section 627.428). The insurance company sought fees and costs under Florida Statutes Section 768.79(1) based on the rejected $15,000 proposal for settlement. The insurance company argued that the damages amount ($9,000) plus SFR’s pre-offer interest ($1,364.93) was 25% less than the $15,000 offer. SFR argued that its pre-offer attorneys’ fees and costs had to be included to derive the correct judgment obtained and doing so would place the judgment obtained above the $11,250 threshold.

After a hearing on the issue of entitlement to attorneys’ fees, the trial court sided with the insurance company, and concluded that the judgment obtained by SFR, exclusive of taxable costs and attorneys’ fees, was $9,000. Because this was over 25% less than the $15,000 offer, the trial court determined that the insurance company was entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred from the date of the proposal for settlement.

In reversing the trial court’s order, the appellate court noted that when a defendant serves a legally sufficient offer of judgment that “is not accepted by the plaintiff, and if the judgment obtained by the plaintiff is at least 25 percent less than the amount of the offer, the defendant” is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs “incurred from the date the offer was served.” Florida Statutes Section 768.79(7)(a). It further noted that regarding offers from defendants, “the term judgment obtained means the amount of the net judgment entered, plus any postoffer settlement amounts by which the verdict was reduced.” Florida Statutes Section 768.79(7). The appellate court then cited the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in White v. Steak & Ale of Fla., Inc., 816 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2002), which held “that the ‘judgment obtained’…includes the net judgment for damages and any attorneys’ fees and taxable costs that could have been included in a final judgment if such final judgment was entered on the date of the offer.” 816 So.2d at 551. The court added that “[a]pplication of the formula does not turn on whether the offer includes attorneys’ fees or costs.”            

The Sixth DCA concluded that the trial court erred in failing to apply the White formula in calculating the judgment obtained and should have included SFR’s pre-offer costs and attorneys’ fees. The Sixth DCA further concluded that applying the White formula, the insurance company was not entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs under the offer of judgment statute and reversed the final judgment in favor of the insurance company.

---

[1] Parties often use the terms “proposal for settlement” and “offer of judgment” interchangeably.