Plaintiff sued two defendants, one employed by the other, alleging defamation by the employee and vicarious liability on the part of the employer. The employer filed a joint proposal for settlement, which fully complied with all procedural requirements of the rule. The proposal included a requirement that "the writing evidencing acceptance of this proposal must include the explicit acknowledgment by the plaintiff that by making this proposal, defendants are not admitting that they have said or done anything improper referable to the plaintiff, and that the defendants are attempting to purchase their peace from this plaintiff." Plaintiff did not accept the proposal and the case went to jury trial.

The jury returned a verdict finding that the employee made the statement, but that plaintiff did not suffer any damages as a result. Defendant then sought to recover fees pursuant to the PFS and the trial court denied the motion. Though the court found that the PFS had been made in good faith, it concluded that the acknowledgment requirement was ambiguous and thus the PFS was unenforceable.

On appeal, the Fourth DCA disagreed, finding nothing ambiguous about this requirement. Stating that the paragraph requires plaintiff to do three simple things: "(1) make the acceptance in writing; (2) acknowledge that the "defendants are not admitting that they have said or done anything improper referable to the plaintiff; and (3) further acknowledge that defendants were merely "attempting to purchase their peace from this plaintiff." By directing the language to be contained within the written acceptance, the defendants were not ambiguous. Significantly, plaintiff failed to suggest what alternative meaning could be attributed to this requirement.

The court also rejected the arguments that the PFS was not made in good faith or otherwise failed to comply with the requirements of the rules. The order denying fees was reversed.

* * *

For more information on this topic, you may send an email to Dorothy DiFiore at .