Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
United Services Auto. Ass'n v. Behar
Citations: 752 So. 2d 663; 2000 WL 146050Docket: 2D99-01592
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; January 20, 2000; Florida; State Appellate Court
In the case of United Services Automobile Association v. Raymond J. Behar, M.D. and Susan L. Behar, the Florida District Court of Appeal addressed an appeal regarding the denial of attorney fees to USAA under the offer of judgment statute and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442. The trial court found USAA's proposal for settlement defective because it did not specify the amounts attributable to each party, violating rule 1.442(c)(3). Dr. Behar had settled with the at-fault party before suing USAA for underinsured motorist coverage, with the Behars later demanding $395,000 from USAA, which it rejected. The jury ultimately ruled that the other driver was not negligent, leading USAA to seek attorney fees based on its earlier settlement offer of $125,001, which was deemed rejected by the Behars due to their lack of timely response. The court emphasized that offers must be clear and specific for each party to allow proper evaluation, aligning with the statute's purpose of encouraging settlement. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that USAA's failure to comply with the rule precluded an award of fees. USAA's argument that its joint settlement proposal meets the requirements of the rule is rejected. Mrs. Behar retains an independent right to assess and decide her claim, even though it is derivative of her husband's injury. There is no indication of any incompetence or legal disability preventing her from making this decision. Citing *Orange County v. Piper*, it is emphasized that the loss of consortium is a separate cause of action owned by the spouse, despite being derived from the injury to the other spouse. The ruling underscores the necessity for USAA to itemize its settlement offer for both Mrs. and Dr. Behar, as each must independently evaluate their claims. This situation contrasts with *Spruce Creek Development Co. of Ocala v. Drew*, where joint offers to a single defendant did not require apportionment. Here, USAA's single, undifferentiated offer to multiple claimants violated the requirement of rule 1.442, which necessitates that joint proposals specify amounts attributable to each party, allowing for independent consideration of claims. Consequently, USAA’s motion for fees based on this defective offer was properly denied. The decision was affirmed with concurrence from Parker, A.C.J., and Green, J.