The Third District Court of Appeal for Florida in SDG Dadeland Associates, Inc., v. Keyna Arias, reversed the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Circuit's denial of Defendant's motion for attorney's fees based on a joint proposal for settlement under section 768.89 of the Florida Statutes. The Third District Court held that the Joint Proposal for Settlement was valid as it accurately reflected the joint offer and allocation of payments, despite the indemnified offeror not monetarily contributing to the joint Proposal.
The Plaintiff, Kenya Arias, slipped and fell in a mall operated by Defendant, Dadeland Associates, Inc. (“Dadeland”), and maintained by Co-Defendant, Nationwide Janitorial Services, Inc. (“Nationwide”) (collectively “Defendants”). Nationwide’s service contract with Dadeland contained an indemnification provision agreeing to defend, indemnify, and hold Dadeland harmless from third-party claims resulting from Nationwide’s Janitorial services. Defendants filed a Joint Proposal for Settlement. The Joint Proposal for Settlement noted that Nationwide would contribute $5,000, while Dadeland would contribute $0.00. The Proposal for Settlement was rejected by the Plaintiff.
After a jury trial resulted in a verdict in favor of the Defendants, they moved for attorney's fees under section 768.79. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the Proposal for Settlement was invalid due to its ambiguity, particularly, Dadeland’s failure to contribute to the offer. On appeal, the Plaintiff argued that Dadeland's status as a defendant would be in question as per the terms of the Proposal for Settlement. However, the Third District Court of Appeals found this argument meritless, stating that the Proposal clearly conditioned acceptance by requiring a dismissal as to all defendants.
Secondarily, Plaintiff argued that the Joint Proposal was ambiguous as it was an illusory offer with no consideration from Dadeland. The Third District Court rejected this argument, noting out that Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442 expressly allows co-defendants to make joint settlement proposals as long as the proposal states the amount and terms attributable to each party. The Court ruled that the Proposal was compliant with Florida rules and that the allocation of payments was sensible considering the indemnity agreement between the parties.
The Third DCA concluded that indemnified parties do not have to waive their entitlement to indemnification to avail themselves of the substantive rights provided under 768.79.