holding that section 768.79 is substantive for both constitutional and conflict of law purposes
How later courts described this case
- holding that section 768.79 is substantive for both constitutional and conflict of law purposes
- explaining that section 768.79 must be strictly construed because it is in derogation of the common law rule that a party is responsible for its own attorney’s fees, and because it is penal in nature.
- holding “if the elements of rule 1.442(c)(2) were not mandatory, we would have stated at the beginning of rule 1.442(c)(2) that the proposal ‘may’ contain the requirements listed in that subsection.”
- noting that Southeast Floating Docks only addressed situations were a contract with a choice of law provision required the application of another state’s law, and finding that Fla. Stat. § 768.79 governs where the trial court applied Florida law to some claims, and another state’s law to a deceptive trade practices claim based on the facts and not a contractual choice of law provision
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CANADY, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in answering the two certified questions regarding the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act in the affirmative. I also concur in the negative answer to the first certified question concerning Florida’s offer of judgment law— which concerns the application of section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2011), to cases that seek equitable relief in the alternative to money damages. I would decline to answer the second certified question relating to Florida’s offer of judgment law, which concerns offers of judgment that do not specify whether attorney fees are a part of the claim. That question is rendered moot by the answer to the other question regarding Florida’s offer of judgment law.