Joseph Bradfield v. Mid-Continent Casualty Company , 692 F. App'x 978 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •            Case: 16-17385   Date Filed: 06/07/2017   Page: 1 of 6
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    No. 16-17385
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 5:13-cv-00222-WTH-PRL
    JOSEPH BRADFIELD,
    PATRICIA BRADFIELD,
    Plaintiffs-Appellees,
    versus
    MID-CONTINENT CASUALTY COMPANY,
    a foreign corporation,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Florida
    ________________________
    (June 7, 2017)
    Before HULL, WILSON and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Case: 16-17385     Date Filed: 06/07/2017    Page: 2 of 6
    Mid-Continent Casualty Company appeals the denial of its motion for
    attorney’s fees based on its unaccepted offer of judgment. Fla. Stat. § 768.79
    (2006); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442. The district court ruled that Mid-Continent could not
    recover attorney’s fees because its joint offer of judgment was invalid. We affirm.
    I. BACKGROUND
    Mid-Continent issued commercial general liability insurance policies to
    Winfree Homes, Inc., and Horgo Enterprises, Inc. A third entity, Horgo Signature
    Homes, Inc., used Winfree and Horgo Enterprises as contractors, which Horgo
    Signature failed to disclose in its contract to build a home for Joseph and Patricia
    Bradfield. The Bradfields’ home was rife with construction defects, the majority of
    which were attributable to work performed by subcontractors used by Winfree and
    Horgo Enterprises.
    After the Bradfields sued Winfree and Horgo Signature in a Florida court,
    Winfree and Horgo Signature notified Mid-Continent of the action, but it denied
    coverage and refused to provide a defense. The parties settled the action. The
    Bradfields agreed to release all claims against Winfree, Horgo Signature, and
    Horgo Enterprises, and Winfree and Horgo Signature, in exchange, agreed to be
    held jointly and severally liable for $696,108 and to assign their putative claims
    against Mid-Continent to the Bradfields.
    2
    Case: 16-17385      Date Filed: 06/07/2017   Page: 3 of 6
    The Bradfields filed a complaint in a Florida court against Mid-Continent,
    which removed the action to the district court. Mid-Continent served the Bradfields
    with a joint offer of judgment to “resolve[] all claims that the Bradfields asserted
    or could have asserted against [Mid-Continent] in connection with the complaint,
    and under the Horgo Enterprises, Inc. (“Horgo Enterprises”) and Winfree Homes,
    Inc. (“Winfree”) policies of insurance issued by [Mid-Continent].” See Fla. Stat.
    § 768.79. Mid-Continent offered to pay $7,500 that could “be split equally by the
    Bradfields or in any other matter [sic] they see fit.” In exchange, Mid-Continent
    demanded “a full and complete release of all claims that the Bradfields had, have,
    or that they could have asserted against Horgo Enterprises, Winfree, and/or [Mid-
    Continent]” and “a full and complete satisfaction of any and all Final
    Judgment(s)/Consent Judgments they jointly obtained against Horgo Signature
    Homes, Inc. and/or Winfree.”
    The Bradfields did not respond to the offer and moved for partial summary
    judgment. Later, Mid-Continent moved for summary judgment. The district court
    granted the motion of Mid-Continent and denied the Bradfields’ motion.
    Mid-Continent filed a motion for attorney’s fees based on its unaccepted
    offer of judgment, see 
    id., which the
    district court denied. The district court ruled
    that the offer of judgment was invalid and unenforceable because “neither [of the
    Bradfields] could independently accept the offer without the other joining the
    3
    Case: 16-17385     Date Filed: 06/07/2017    Page: 4 of 6
    release and agreeing to the terms of the settlement.” See Attorneys’ Title Insurance
    Fund, Inc. v. Gorka, 
    36 So. 3d 646
    (Fla. 2010).
    II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
    We review the denial of attorney’s fees for abuse of discretion. Menchise v.
    Akerman Senterfitt, 
    532 F.3d 1146
    , 1149 (11th Cir. 2008). “To the extent that the
    district court’s conclusion implicates a question of law, we review de novo.” 
    Id. (quoting Barnes
    v. Broward Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 
    190 F.3d 1274
    , 1276–77 (11th
    Cir. 1999)).
    III. DISCUSSION
    Under Florida law, which the parties agree applies, a defendant who prevails
    in a civil action can recover attorney’s fees when the defendant made “an offer of
    judgment which [was] not accepted by the plaintiff within 30 days,” Fla. Stat.
    § 768.79(1), if that offer complied with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442. See
    
    Gorka, 36 So. 3d at 649
    . Rule 1.442 requires that an offer of judgment identify the
    benefits to and obligations of an offeree. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.442(c). When an offer is
    made “by or to any combination of parties,” the offer “shall state the amount and
    terms attributable to each [plaintiff].” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442(c)(3).
    The Supreme Court of Florida has ruled that a defendant is not entitled to
    attorney’s fees based on a joint offer of judgment conditioned on the mutual
    4
    Case: 16-17385     Date Filed: 06/07/2017    Page: 5 of 6
    acceptance of all the offerees. 
    Gorka, 36 So. 3d at 647
    . “[T]hat . . . type of joint
    offer is invalid and unenforceable,” the Gorka court reasoned, because it “violates
    the[] principles” of Rule 1.442(c)(3), which requires an independent offer for each
    offeree. 
    Id. at 649–51.
    Unless an offer enables “each party [to] unilaterally settle
    the action,” the court explained, it “is really a phantom offer that would never
    produce a settlement.” 
    Id. at 651.
    Gorka affirmed the denial of attorney’s fees to an
    insurer that made an offer of judgment to a couple who jointly owned a policy of
    insurance “conditioned upon the offer being accepted by both” spouses. 
    Id. at 648,
    652.
    The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Mid-Continent
    attorney’s fees because its offer of judgment was unenforceable. As in Gorka,
    Mid-Continent conditioned its offer of settlement on the Bradfields’ mutual
    acceptance of $7,500 and a joint release of all their claims. Mid-Continent argues
    that it could make a “single offer” because the Bradfields sought to recover on a
    “jointly-held consent judgment,” but Gorka established a bright line rule under
    Rule 1.442(c)(3). The rule that an offeror make independent offers of judgment to
    multiple offerees, the supreme court stated, “equally applies” whether the “case
    involves only two plaintiffs with a personal relationship” or “multiple parties
    absent a close personal or financial relationship.” Gorka, 
    36 So. 3d 652
    ; see also
    Graham v. The Peter K. Yeskel 1996 Irrevocable Trust, 
    928 So. 2d 371
    , 372 (Fla.
    5
    Case: 16-17385     Date Filed: 06/07/2017    Page: 6 of 6
    Dist. Ct. App. 2006) (concluding the “bright line rule requiring apportionment
    under Rule 1.442(c)(3)” applied to a “single unified claim” by a couple “for
    settlement as tenants by the entireties”). The bright line rule established in Gorka
    governs this issue.
    IV. CONCLUSION
    We AFFIRM the denial of attorney’s fees to Mid-Continent.
    6
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-17385 Non-Argument Calendar

Citation Numbers: 692 F. App'x 978

Judges: Hull, Wilson, Pryor

Filed Date: 6/7/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024