A good faith proposal for settlement is the price of admission to Florida’s offer of judgment statute — and in Hunt v. Lightfoot, Florida’s First District Court of Appeal held that a demand for $1.3 million in cash within thirty days was not one. The court reversed a $1,415,254.55 attorney’s fee award, holding that a proposal engineered to be impossible to accept cannot support fee sanctions. Below is the decision in IRAC form, followed by drafting points from the litigation team at Cox Law, PLLC.
Facts
In 2011, Marilyn Roseanne Hunt rear-ended James Lightfoot in a car accident. Lightfoot sued Hunt in 2012 for negligence, alleging injuries. Hunt had a $50,000 bodily injury liability insurance policy with State Farm, which provided her defense.
In 2015, Lightfoot served a Proposal for Settlement (PFS) on Hunt demanding $1.3 million in cash, payable within 30 days, in exchange for a full release and dismissal of all claims. Hunt did not accept the PFS.
The case proceeded to trial in 2019. The jury found Hunt 100% at fault and awarded Lightfoot more than $11 million in damages (including $10 million in non-economic damages). The underlying judgment was affirmed on appeal.
Lightfoot then moved for attorney’s fees and costs under Florida’s offer of judgment statute (section 768.79, Florida Statutes) and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442. The trial court awarded Lightfoot $1,415,254.55 in fees and costs against Hunt and joined State Farm in the judgment. Hunt challenged the award, arguing the PFS was invalid because it was not made in good faith — it imposed an impossible condition. The trial court rejected that argument.
Issue
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by awarding attorney’s fees and costs based on the PFS — specifically, whether it was a good faith proposal for settlement under section 768.79(7)(a) and Rule 1.442(h)(1), given that it required payment of $1.3 million in cash within 30 days, an amount and timeframe Hunt (and most individuals) could not realistically meet.
(A secondary procedural issue involved State Farm’s joinder and coverage for the fee judgment, which became moot.)
The Rule: What Makes a Good Faith Proposal for Settlement
- Section 768.79, Florida Statutes, and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442 allow a plaintiff to recover reasonable costs and attorney’s fees if a valid PFS is not accepted and the plaintiff obtains a judgment at least 25% greater than the offer.
- These provisions are penal in nature and in derogation of the common-law “American Rule” (each party bears its own fees), so they must be strictly construed in favor of the party against whom fees are sought.
- A proposal supports fee-shifting only if it is a good faith proposal for settlement. Good faith requires that the offeror had a reasonable foundation for the offer and made it with a genuine intent to settle the claim if accepted (citing TGI Friday’s, Inc. v. Dvorak, 663 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1995)).
- The offeree bears the burden of proving lack of good faith. The statute’s purpose is to encourage settlement by sanctioning the unreasonable rejection of realistic offers — not to impose penalties for rejecting illusory ones.
- A trial court’s good-faith determination is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Application: The First DCA’s Analysis
The 1st DCA held that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that Lightfoot had served a good faith proposal for settlement.
The court acknowledged that a defendant’s ability to pay is generally irrelevant to PFS validity. However, the specific terms here — demanding $1.3 million in cash within 30 days — created an impossible condition for acceptance. Very few people (including Hunt, who had only $50,000 in insurance coverage) could liquidate and tender that amount in cash so quickly. The offer was therefore illusory: it appeared structured to fail rather than to provide a genuine opportunity to settle.
The court emphasized: “By requiring Ms. Hunt to tender $1.3 million in cash within thirty days to accept, Mr. Lightfoot chose to include an impossible condition that was designed to fail.” This lacked the required intent to settle if accepted and undermined the statute’s purpose of promoting reasonable settlements.
The court noted that alternative wording (e.g., allowing acceptance via entry of judgment or a promissory note) could have made the offer enforceable, but the strict “cash on the barrelhead” demand rendered it invalid for fee-shifting purposes.
Because Lightfoot’s offer was not a good faith proposal for settlement, he was not entitled to the substantial attorney’s fee award.
Holding: No Good Faith Proposal for Settlement, No Fees
The 1st DCA reversed the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees, affirmed the award of taxable costs (which was unchallenged), and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
In the companion appeal by State Farm, the court dismissed the appeal as moot once the fee award was reversed.
The decision is useful precedent that a good faith proposal for settlement must reflect a realistic intent to settle; offers with impossible conditions will not trigger fee sanctions under Florida’s offer of judgment statute.
Practice Points for Drafting a Good Faith Proposal for Settlement
Make acceptance possible. A good faith proposal for settlement should permit acceptance by a mechanism the offeree can actually perform — entry of an agreed final judgment, a consent judgment, or a promissory note — rather than a lump-sum cash tender on a short fuse.
Do not confuse ability to pay with impossibility. Hunt reaffirms that an offeree’s finances are generally irrelevant to validity. The defect was the term itself: a condition no ordinary defendant could satisfy is designed to fail, and a proposal designed to fail is not a good faith proposal for settlement.
Document the reasonable foundation. Under TGI Friday’s, good faith turns on whether the offeror had a reasonable basis for the number and a genuine intent to settle. Contemporaneous damages analysis, medical specials, and coverage information are the record you will want when fees are litigated years later — and they are what separates a good faith proposal for settlement from an illusory one.
Remember who carries the burden — and who gets the benefit of the doubt. The offeree must prove the absence of good faith, but section 768.79 and Rule 1.442 are penal and strictly construed against the party seeking fees, so ambiguity in the proposal’s terms cuts against the offeror.
Defense counsel: preserve the objection. Hunt’s challenge succeeded because the impossibility of the acceptance term was raised and preserved below. If a proposal arrives with terms your client cannot perform, say so in writing and renew the argument in response to any fee motion.
The opinion may be found here: Hunt v. Lightfoot, No. 2020-2303 (Fla. 1st DCA) (PDF).
Served with a proposal for settlement, or weighing whether to serve one? Whether an offer qualifies as a good faith proposal for settlement is a drafting problem long before it becomes a fee problem. Call Cox Law, PLLC at 813-685-8600 or request a consultation.