Proposals for Settlement in Florida Not Easily Set Aside

In Neeld v. Combs, Case No. 5D2023-1803, 2025 Fla. App. LEXIS 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA Feb. 14, 2025), the trial court determined that the parties' settlement agreement was unenforceable, allowing the plaintiff to withdraw his settlement proposal over four months after acceptance based on an alleged mistake the plaintiff had made with regards to settlement amount. However, the appellate court found that a binding settlement agreement was formed where a proposal for settlement was expressly made pursuant to the provisions of section 768.79 and rule 1.442, signed by plaintiff's counsel, e-filed with the court, e-served on defendant's counsel, and timely accepted by defendant in writing. The appellate court found that the settlement agreement could not be set aside based on the fact that proposal for settlement was the product of a unilateral mistake, as an agreement made pursuant to section 768.79 essentially operates as a consent judgment and common law methods for attacking contract formation are not available to unwind those agreements. The appellate court found no legal basis to allow plaintiff to withdraw his proposal for settlement or set aside defendant's acceptance. The argument that plaintiff's counsel lacked authority to settle for stated amount was rejected, because the proposal was signed and served by counsel and notice of service was filed with trial court, showing objective evidence of counsel's authority to make the proposal existed. The appellate court also noted that the plaintiff offered no objective evidence supporting his assertion that counsel lacked authority and whether plaintiff subjectively intended a different settlement amount is irrelevant to the analysis.

This case may seem basic, but our office has seen an increase in parties looking to back out of the settlement agreements they enter into, claiming the exact same defenses. If you submit a Proposal for Settlement to the other side and it is accepted, you are bound by that offer. Conversely, if you make an offer for settlement and this is advised to the trial court, it will be upheld, with the possibility of fees and costs being assessed if the settlement agreement is wrongfully repudiated by the offeror or offeree.

If you are interested in receiving a copy of this decision or wish to discuss this issue further, please feel free to reach out to us at blog@miamimaritimelaw.co or 305.377.3700.

Florida Court Clarifies Personal Jurisdiction Over Non-Residents

In Pianezza v. Mia Collection Servs.. LLC, 2024 Fla. App. LEXIS 1784 (Fla. 3d DCA March 6, 2024), an action against non-resident principal and employee of foreign limited liability company alleging claims of fraud in the inducement, negligent misrepresentation, breach of express warranty, and conspiracy stemming from LLC's provision of counterfeit merchandise was not dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction and the defendants appealed. The appellate court found that the corporate shield doctrine did not protect defendants from the trial court's exercise of personal jurisdiction where the complaint sufficiently alleged that defendants committed a tortious act within Florida by directing telephonic and electronic communications into Florida in which they allegedly fraudulently misrepresented the authenticity of merchandise sold to the plaintiff. The appellate court explained that the corporate shield doctrine will not operate to bar personal jurisdiction in Florida over an individual defendant that commits a tortious act in Florida, regardless of whether it was on behalf of a corporate employer.

The appellate court also found that defendants' affidavits were insufficient to shift the burden back to the plaintiff to demonstrate why jurisdiction was proper where, although both defendants denied in their declarations that they directed a phone call, text message, or e-mail to anyone in the state of Florida, they qualified these statements by stating they never did so on their own behalf . The qualification by these defendants failed to negate the allegation that they committed tortious acts in Florida by sending and/or directing telephonic and electronic communications into Florida. This, the court explained, leaves open the inference that they did direct phone calls, text messages, and/or emails into Florida in their capacity as employees of the LLC. The appellate court also found that principal's declaration as a corporate representative on behalf of LLC contained nothing more than legal conclusions, which plaintiff was not required to refute.

The appellate court therefore found that the trial court properly concluded that sufficient minimum contacts existed because defendants knew plaintiff was located in Florida and, therefore, knew their alleged misrepresentations would impact a Florida resident and would cause injuries in Florida. Thus, these non-resident defendants are required to defend the case brought against them in Florida.

If you are interested in receiving a copy of this decision or wish to learn more about the impact of this decision, please feel free to reach out to us at admin@miamimaritimelaw.co or blog@miamimaritimelaw.co.

New Webinar: EMBARC on New SASH Reporting on U.S. Vessels: How Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment is Reported in the Maritime Industry

On December 21, 2023, I created a new Lawline 1-hour CLE on sexual harassment and sexual assault ("SASH") laws for U.S. vessels, You can check it out here at EMBARC on New SASH Reporting on U.S. Vessels: How Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment is Reported in the Maritime Industry and Key Issues for All U.S. Flag Commercial Vessel Operators - Online CLE Course | Lawline. Any questions on the program or want to talk to me, you can email me at blog@miamimaritimelaw.co or by phone at 305.377.3700.

News Flash: Marine Insurance Forum Selection Clause Upheld in Florida

In Wello & Mom, LLC v. Clear Spring Prop. & Cas. Co., 2023 WL 8609239, 2023 Fla. App. LEXIS 8438 (Fla. 3d DCA Dec. 13, 2023, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeals, which encompasses Miami-Dade County has held that a policy's forum selection clause, which required that suits arising under the policy be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts, is enforceable.

On appeal, the insured contended the policy's forum selection clause should be deemed unenforceable as it was not negotiated and deprived it of the right to a jury trial, given the insurer had already filed a separate declaratory judgment action in federal court.

The court surprisingly found that there is a well-entrenched rule of federal admiralty law favoring the enforcement of forum selection clauses in maritime contracts, citing several well-known cases including M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute and Turner v. Costa Crociere S.p.A.. However none of the cases cited in the decision involved forum selection clauses in marine insurance policies, as claimed in the decision, and none of the cases squarely address Wilburn Boat Co. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 348 U.S. 310 (1955), which held that “the whole judicial and legislative history of insurance regulation in the United States warns us against the judicial creation of admiralty rules to govern marine policy terms…” Wilburn Boat also noted that the “control of all types of insurance companies and contracts has been primarily a state function since the States came into being.”

This latest ruling adds to the anticipation of SCOTUS’ ruling in Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co, LLC, No. 22-500, where the insurer is employing the same M/S Bremen argument requesting SCOTUS to uphold applying a choice of law clause calling for all cases against the insurer to be brought in New York State.

If you are interested in obtaining of copy of this decision or wish to discuss any matter involving marine insurance, please feel free to reach out to me at blog@miamimaritimelaw.co or 305.377.3700.