Highland Holdings, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co., et al

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Mid-Continent Casualty Company. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 17-14455

Date Filed: 03/12/2018

Page: 1 of 5

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-14455
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:14-cv-01334-SDM-TBM
HIGHLAND HOLDINGS, INC.,
d.b.a. Highland Homes, Inc.,
ROBERT J. ADAMS,
Plaintiffs Counter Defendants Appellees,
versus
MID-CONTINENT CASUALTY COMPANY,
Defendant Counter Claimant Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(March 12, 2018)

Case: 17-14455

Date Filed: 03/12/2018

Page: 2 of 5

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JULIE CARNES, and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Mid-Continent Casualty Company appeals the denial of its motion to collect
appellate attorney’s fees from its insureds, Highland Holdings, Inc., and its
executive officer, Robert Adams, for rejecting an offer of judgment. See Fla. Stat.
§ 768.79. The district court ruled that the offer by Mid-Continent to settle an action
seeking both equitable and monetary relief was invalid. We affirm.
During the pendency of an action by a third party against them, Highland
Holdings and Adams filed a complaint for a declaratory judgment that they were
entitled to indemnification from Mid-Continent. Highland Holdings and Adams
later settled the dispute with the third party for $650,000 and amended their
complaint against Mid-Continent to add a claim for breach of contract. As part of
their claim for a declaratory judgment, Highland Holdings and Adams requested a
declaration that “Mid-Continent has a duty to fully indemnify . . . Highland”
Holdings and “to indemnify . . . Adams.” With respect to their claim for breach of
contract, Highland Holdings and Adams requested “that judgment be entered
against . . . [Mid-Continent] for the $650,000 paid . . . as damages in the
underlying lawsuit . . . .”
Mid-Continent served Highland Holdings and Adams with a joint offer of
judgment “to resolve all claims that [they] [had] asserted, or could have asserted, in

2

Case: 17-14455

Date Filed: 03/12/2018

Page: 3 of 5

their Amended Complaint against [Mid-Continent].” See Fla. Stat. § 768.79; Fla.
R. Civ. P. 1.442. Mid-Continent offered to pay $200,000 if “both Highland and
Adams . . . accept[ed] the Joint Proposal and both . . . provide[d] [Mid-Continent]
with a full and complete release of all claims that [they] have asserted, or could
have asserted, against [Mid-Continent].” Highland Holdings and Adams rejected
the offer.
Later, both parties moved for summary judgment. The district court entered
summary judgment in favor of Mid-Continent, and we affirmed.
Mid-Continent then moved for an award of appellate attorney’s fees. We
transferred the motion to the district court. The district court denied the motion of
Mid-Continent on the ground that section 768.79 did not apply to an offer of
judgment that resolved claims for both damages and declaratory relief.
Under Florida law, which the parties agree applies, a defendant who prevails
“[i]n any civil action for damages” can recover its attorney’s fees when it made “an
offer of judgment which [was] not accepted by the plaintiff within 30 days.” Fla.
Stat. § 768.79(1). By its plain language, section 768.79 “is applicable to a claim in
a civil action in which a party seeks only damages, i.e., monetary relief.” Diamond
Aircraft Indus., Inc. v. Horowitch, 107 So. 3d 362, 373 (Fla. 2013). If the plaintiff
requests injunctive relief and monetary damages and the defendant serves a general

3

Case: 17-14455

Date Filed: 03/12/2018

Page: 4 of 5

offer of judgment that seeks release of all claims, the defendant cannot recover its
attorney’s fees under section 768.79. Id. at 374.
The district court did not err by denying the motion of Mid-Continent to
recover its attorney’s fees under section 768.79. Mid-Continent made a general
offer of judgment to settle “all claims” in the amended complaint, and that
pleading sought both equitable relief and a monetary judgment. The complaint by
Highland Holdings and Adams for a declaratory judgment about “insurance
coverage for [its] underlying tort action” did not constitute “a civil action for
damages within the meaning of” section 768.79. See Nat’l Indem. Co. of the S. v.
Consol. Ins. Servs., 778 So. 2d 404, 408 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001). Because
Highland Holdings and Adams sought “both monetary and nonmonetary relief, and
[Mid-Continent] ma[de] a general offer of settlement, section 768.79 is not
applicable.” Diamond Aircraft, 107 So. 3d at 373.
Mid-Continent argues that its offer is like those made by the defendants in
Nelson v. Marine Group of Palm Beach, Inc., 677 So. 2d 998 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
1996), and MYD Marine Distributor v. International Paint Ltd., 187 So. 3d 1285
(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016), to which the offer of judgment statute applied, but we
disagree. Although the plaintiffs in Nelson and MYD brought actions for a
declaratory judgment, the only issue in dispute was their entitlement to money. In
Nelson, the plaintiff sought to reclaim liquidated damages held in escrow by the
4

Case: 17-14455

Date Filed: 03/12/2018

Page: 5 of 5

defendant. 677 So. 2d at 999. In MYD, the plaintiff abandoned its request for an
order to enjoin the defendants from fixing the market price of paint and sought
only money damages. 187 So. 3d at 1286–87. In contrast, the amended “complaint
[that Highland Holdings and Adams filed] contained two independent, significant
claims, such that it could be characterized only as an action for both damages and
non-monetary, declaratory relief.” See Palm Beach Polo Holdings, Inc. v.
Equestrian Club Estates Prop. Owners Ass’n, Inc., 22 So. 3d 140, 143 (Fla. Dist.
Ct. App. 2009). Highland Holdings and Adams requested both a declaration of
insurance coverage and a judgment in the amount of the settlement they had paid
to the third party.
We AFFIRM the denial of the motion of Mid-Continent for appellate
attorney’s fees.

5