Associate Attorney
In CBRE, Inc. v. DidierGroup, LLC, (Fla. 6th DCA Mar. 13, 2026), the Sixth District reversed part of a judgment, holding that a defendant is entitled to a setoff when the plaintiff settles identical claims with a co-defendant.
What happened:
DG sued CBRE for tortious interference and aiding/abetting a breach of fiduciary duty. DG had also asserted the same claims against Rison Corners Property, LLC (“RCP”). Before trial, DG settled with RCP.
CBRE sought a setoff for the RCP settlement, arguing that without it, DG would recover duplicative damages. The trial court denied CBRE’s motion, and CBRE appealed.
The Sixth District held that Florida’s setoff statutes — sections 768.041(2) and 46.015(2) — require a reduction of damages when the plaintiff has received a settlement for identical claims. Since, DG’s damages against CBRE and RCP were the same, the trial court erred in refusing setoff.
Why it matters (for trial lawyers):
Setoff statutes exist to prevent double recovery. Key points:
• The damages “sued for” against settling and non-settling parties must be identical
• A defendant may assert setoff after a co-defendant settles
• Trial courts must calculate and apply the setoff before entering final judgment
Takeaway:
If a plaintiff settles with one party for claims also asserted against your client, always assert a setoff. Ignoring it risks an appeal and a remand for recalculation of damages.
* * * * * * * * * *
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.