Arbitration & Mediation

Third DCA Puts a "Blue Dot" on Proposal for Settlements

By Christopher B. Hopkins, Esq.

Is the Third District trying to send a message regarding Proposals for Settlement?

So it appears, at least in Harris Specialty Chemicals, Inc. v. Punto Azul S.A. de C.V. et al. (Gersten, Cortinas and Salter)

We typically complain when an opinion comes out without a clear recitation of what language works/doesn't work in an arbitration clause or proposal. Here, however, we are interpreting that the omission was intentional.

In this case, we are not given the fact pattern nor the Proposal for Settlement language. Instead, all we know is party A (Harris) was denied attorney's fees on its Proposal to party B (Punto Azul or "Blue Dot"). Azul had convinced the trial court that there was some ambiguity in the Proposal which warranted denial under Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442(c)(3) and/or Florida Statute 768.79.

The Third DCA confirmed that the rule does not require a settlement proposal to cover (a) all claims between all parties or (b) settle all claims between the parties to the proposal. Citing cases from other Districts -- likely intentionally to create some shared precedent -- the Panel concluded that, "courts are urged to use reason and common sense and interpret the offer as a whole to avoid unreasonable results."

Given the historically high failure rate of Proposals when the issue goes on appeal -- typically due to tricky technical issues -- this may be the Third District's way of signaling a more practical, less tricky interpretation method even though the rule/statute is narrowly construed.

Full post as published by Florida Arbitration Law on June 01, 2009 (boomark / email).