Senior Law Clerk
In multi-party litigation, proposals for settlement (PFS) under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442 and § 768.79, Florida Statutes can be powerful strategic tools — but only if they’re carefully drafted to comply with both the rules and the case law.
Zach Pearlman’s research memo, reviewed and supplemented by Neely Brown, highlighted the often-confused area of apportionment in multi-defendant proposals. Their key finding: unless defendants are jointly and severally liable, each party must make a separate, apportioned proposal to each plaintiff — and vice versa.
Key Clarifications from the Research
- Apportionment is required when there are multiple defendants (or plaintiffs) asserting independent claims or defenses.
- The offer must clearly state the amount allocated to each offeree or offeror.
- You cannot condition an offer to one party on acceptance by another — except in vicarious liability scenarios.
Neely noted that joint and several liability exceptions still apply, such as in cases involving employer-employee relationships or principal-agent scenarios where liability is truly unified. In those cases, a joint offer may be permitted — and courts have upheld such proposals when both defendants stipulate that settlement will result in dismissal with prejudice as to both.
Zach’s memo also confirmed that the Florida Supreme Court has tried to clarify this area, but conflicting appellate decisions and evolving rule changes have kept things murky. As a result, litigators must be extremely cautious when using a PFS in multi-party cases.
Takeaway: Florida’s PFS framework is full of traps — especially when multiple parties are involved. Unless liability is shared (e.g., vicarious liability), you must apportion settlement offers, or risk invalidation. Always review the latest rules and double-check your proposal language before filing.
At Boatman Ricci, we help clients use tools like proposals for settlement effectively — without triggering fee battles over technical errors. Planning a PFS in a multi-party case? Contact our team to make sure it counts.
* * * * * * * * * *
THIS BLOG IS INTENDED FOR GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY. IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE. THE READER SHOULD CONSULT WITH KNOWLEDGEABLE LEGAL COUNSEL TO DETERMINE HOW APPLICABLE LAWS APPLY TO SPECIFIC FACTS AND SITUATIONS. BLOG POSTS ARE BASED ON THE MOST CURRENT INFORMATION AT THE TIME THEY ARE WRITTEN. SINCE IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE LAWS OR OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES MAY HAVE CHANGED SINCE PUBLICATION, PLEASE CALL US TO DISCUSS ANY ACTION YOU MAY BE CONSIDERING AS A RESULT OF READING THIS BLOG.