UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
MARIA GURREONERO AND
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company appealed a trial court's order enforcing a judicially modified proposal for settlement (PFS) that the insurer had not consented to. The appellate court agreed that the trial court erred by unilaterally altering Universal's settlement offer without consent, allowing the insureds to accept the modified proposal after the deadline for accepting the original offer had expired, and then enforcing the modified agreement.
The trial court erred when it judicially altered Universal's original PFS without Universal's consent, permitted the Insureds to accept the modified PFS after the deadline for accepting the original had expired, and ordered Universal to comply with the modified PFS. Once a court materially alters the terms of an offer, there is no offer to accept because the offering party did not intend to make the offer with the modified terms.
[1] A trial court errs by judicially altering a proposal for settlement without the offeror's consent.
[2] A party cannot accept a judicially altered proposal for settlement after the time to accept the original proposal has expired.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“once the trial court concluded that the parties could not change the provisions in the non-compete clause as a condition of the offer, it was error to strike the improper condition and to allow Continental to accept the judicially altered offer”
Establishes the core principle that judicial modification of offer terms without offeror consent constitutes error
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceUniversal made a proposal for settlement to Maria and Jose Gurreonero in an insurance dispute. The trial court modified the terms of Universal's PFS w…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Material Alteration Of Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
CONNER, J.
Appellant, Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (“Universal”), appeals the trial court’s order enforcing a judicially revised proposal for settlement (“PFS”) between it and Appellees, Maria and Jose Gurreonero (“Insureds”). Insureds concede error.
We agree with Universal, and accept Insureds’ confession of error, that the trial court erred when it judicially altered Universal’s original PFS without Universal’s consent, permitted Insureds to accept the judicially altered PFS after the time to accept the original PFS had expired, and then ordered Universal to comply with the judicially altered PFS. See P & O Ports Fla., Inc. v. Cont’l Stevedoring & Terminals, Inc., 904 So. 2d 507, 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (“[O]nce the trial court concluded that the parties could not change the provisions in the non-compete clause as a condition of the offer, it was error to strike the improper condition and to allow Continental to accept the judicially altered offer.
We conclude that Continental was not free to accept the offer as modified by the court and P & O was not legally bound by its offer which had been materially altered by the court. Once the court changed the terms, there was no offer, as P & O clearly did not intend to make the monetary offer without the elimination of the non-compete provision.”) (internal citations omitted).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions directing the trial court to: (1) strike paragraph three of its March 11, 2022 order, altering Universal’s original PFS; (2) vacate its May 16, 2022 enforcement order; and (3) conduct further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
GERBER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- P & O Ports Fla., Inc. v. Cont'l Stevedoring & Terminals, Inc., 904 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)