Plaintiff submitted an Assignment of Benefits related to a claim for damages to Defendant. Defendant disputed the validity of Plaintiff’s purported Assignment of Benefits because it failed to comply with FS 627.7152. At the evidentiary hearing, Partner, Nikki Hawkins presented evidence showing that the Assignment of Benefits failed to meet the requirements of FS 627.7152. Specifically, Plaintiff failed to timely provide a copy of the assignment of benefits in accordance with FS 627.7152(2)(a)(4); the assignment of benefits failed to include the per unit cost estimate pursuant to the statute and the assignment of benefits was not executed by and between the assignor and the assignee in accordance with FS 627.7152(2)(a)(2). Thus, summary judgment was entered in Defendant’s favor. As part of the litigation of the matter, Defendant served a Proposal for Settlement to Plaintiff. Plaintiff allowed the Proposal for Settlement to expired, effectively rejecting it. As the prevailing party Defendant moved for entitlement to attorney fees and costs. Plaintiff disputed the validity of Defendant’s Proposal for Settlement which contained non-monetary terms (release) in accordance with Florida Statutes § 627.4265. FS 627.4265, allows for a “Release” where there is “a written settlement” of a claim, (The Proposal for Settlement is made in writing. The acceptance of the Proposal for Settlement is made in writing.) Therefore, the accepted Proposal for Settlement would have constituted a written settlement of the claim. In accordance with FS 627.4265, the tender of payment may be conditioned upon execution by such person of a release mutually agreeable to the insurer and the claimant. FRCP 1.442, which states in pertinent part: “After considering the comments and oral argument, we amend subdivisions (c)(2)(C) and (c)(2)(D) of rule 1.442 to exclude nonmonetary terms from a proposal for settlement, with the exceptions of a voluntary dismissal of all claims with prejudice and any other nonmonetary terms permitted by statute.” Based upon the foregoing and the plethora of jurisprudence on enforceability of the Proposal for Settlement, the Court issued an Order Granting Defendant’s Entitlement to Attorney Fees and Costs. Thereafter, at the evidentiary hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Tax Attorney Fees and Costs, Partner Nikki Hawkins demonstrated to the Court that the Attorney’s fees were reasonable and customary and the hours expended on the matter were reasonable. The Court taxed Attorney fees in the amount of $7,706.50. Furthermore, at the evidentiary hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Tax Attorney Fees and Costs, Partner Nikki Hawkins demonstrated that costs in the amount of $970.00 were reasonable. The Court entered its Order Taxing Attorneys’ Fees and Costs in Defendant’s favor.
