May 17, 2017

Florida Statute § 768.81, titled “Comparative Fault”, provides a statutory scheme for determining damages in a “negligence action” and apportioning these damages if there are multiple parties involved.  The statute expressly defines a “negligence action” as including, without limitation, “a[ny] civil action for damages based upon a theory of negligence, strict liability, products liability, professional malpractice whether couched in terms of contract or tort, or breach of warranty and like theories. The substance of an action, not conclusory terms used by a party, determines whether an action is a negligence action.” See Fla. Stat. § 768.81(1)(c).

The statute was amended by the Florida Legislature in April of 2006.  This most recent amendment effectively abolished the doctrine of joint & several liability in its entirety.

Prior to 2006, the previous version of Florida Statute § 768.81 still incorporated the concept of joint & several liability.  Specifically, in discussing how damages in a negligence action should be apportioned, the prior statute stated as follows:  “the court shall enter judgment against each party liable on the basis of such party’s percentage of fault and not on the basis of the doctrine of joint and several liability; provided that with respect to any party whose percentage of fault equals or exceeds that of a particular claimant, the court shall enter judgment with respect to economic damages against that party on the basis of the doctrine of joint and several liability…Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, the doctrine of joint and several liability applies to all actions in which the total amount of damages does not exceed $25,000”.

In short, the prior versions of Florida’s “comparative fault” statute had eliminated the doctrine of joint and several liability – but only for the recovery of non-economic damages in negligence cases.

The current version of the statute does not distinguish between economic and non-economic damages.  Instead, under revised Florida Statute § 768.81(3), in a negligence action the court “shall enter judgment against each party liable on the basis of such party’s percentage of fault and not on the basis of the doctrine of joint and several liability”.  Under the current statute, therefore, if a defendant in a negligence action intends to argue that its overall liability or exposure should be reduced because of the alleged fault of a non-party (including a co-defendant who has “settled out”) that defendant is now statutorily required to affirmatively plead the fault of the non-party and ensure that the non-party is included on the verdict form, and then prove by a preponderance of the evidence the fault of such non-party. See Fla. Stat. § 768.81(3)(a) & (b).

There has not been an abundance of case law since the 2006 amendments to Florida Statute § 768.81 which specifically address the issue of “judgment setoffs” in cases involving settling and non-settling defendants.  However, the few cases that have broached this subject have clearly indicated that not only does a non-settling defendant no longer have a right to a “judgment setoff” regarding a prior settlement between the plaintiff and a settling co-defendant, but some of these courts have further held that information and documents relating to such a settlement are not discoverable by the non-settling defendant to the extent that they have no relevancy to any remaining issue in the litigation.

For example, in Schippers v. United States of America, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141356 (M.D. Fla. 2011), the government was sued as a defendant in a tort action following a fatal airplane crash.  The government filed a motion to compel after the plaintiffs refused to produce a copy of a settlement agreement they reached with another party in the case.  Despite a number of novel arguments and multiple requests by the government to obtain this settlement information, the Schippers court held that the government was not entitled to discover the terms of the settlement between the plaintiff and another co-defendant and further stated that the non-settling defendant “has no right of setoff” now that the doctrine of joint and several liability has been abolished following the legislative amendment in 2006.

In Port Charlotte HMZ, LLC v. Suarez, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 15869 (Fla. 2nd DCA October 26, 2016), the Second District Court of Appeal recently reversed the trial court’s post-trial decision to setoff the from the jury verdict the amounts previously paid by a co-defendant who settled before trial.  The Suarez court held that, in light of the 2006 amendments to Florida Statute § 768.81 and the abolition of the doctrine of joint and several liability, “the trial court erred in applying a setoff” based on the amount paid by a settling co-defendant.  See also Sterbenz v. Anderson, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44568 (M.D. Fla. March 28, 2013)

The recurring argument that is typically raised by a non-settling defendant is that, without a setoff, a plaintiff might possibly obtain a double-recovery or “windfall” – i.e. the plaintiff enters into a lofty settlement with one co-defendant, and then subsequently convinces the jury that the remaining non-settling defendant is principally at fault for its damages.  However, there are several opinions issued by the Supreme Court of Florida (interpreting the prior version of Florida Statute § 768.81) in which the Court explained that “[s]ettlement dollars are not synonymous with damages but merely a contractual estimate of the settling tortfeasor’s liability; they include not only damages but also the value of avoiding the risk and expense at trial” and “[g]iven these components of a settlement, there is no conceptual inconsistency in allowing a plaintiff to recover more from a settlement or partial settlement than he could receive as damages. There can be a multitude of reasons that underlie a settling co-defendant’s calculated business determination regarding the amount that it is willing to pay to voluntarily settle a claim, as well as a plaintiff’s decision to accept such an amount.”  (Plus, as a counter to the “windfall” argument, a plaintiff can similarly argue that it would be equally unfair to it if it accepts a nominal settlement from one co-defendant (with the belief that the lion’s share of liability rests with a non-settling defendant), and the jury ultimately returns a verdict which apportions most of the liability on the settling defendant.  In such a scenario, the plaintiff has no further recourse against the settling defendant and is now stuck with an “anti-windfall”).

Bottom line, under the current version of Florida Statute § 768.81, if a trial court were to recognize and apply a “setoff” defense asserted by a non-settling defendant, and offset a future verdict against that non-settling defendant based on an amount previously paid to the plaintiff by a settling co-defendant, the trial court would be clearly ignoring the plain language of the current statute which states that “the court shall enter judgment against each party liable on the basis of such party’s percentage of fault and not on the basis of the doctrine of joint and several liability”.



Board-Certified Construction Lawyer Andrew Showen spoke at NASTT

Board certified construction lawyer Andrew Showen of Hill Rugh Keller & Main spoke at the North American Society for Trenchless Technology (NASTT) annual convention in Portland, Oregon in May 2023.  Andy discussed the results of a Manatee County


State Of Florida Starts Receivership Proceedings Against Fednat Insurance Company

On September 23, 2022, the Florida Department of Insurance filed a petition to place FedNat Insurance Co. in receivership. The petition alleges that FedNat acknowledged in September 2022 that it did not have enough cash on hand to meet its current ob


Florida Special Legislative Session Amendment To Building Code “25% Rule” Impacts Roofers, Homeowners And Insurers

Building owners needing repairs on a portion of their building are often chagrined to discover that they must pay for an entirely new assembly, because of the “25% rule”.  This was a requirement in the Florida Building Code (2017 Florida Buildin


Florida Court Holds HDD Is Not An Abnormally Dangerous Activity; Alleged Damage to Bridge 90 Feet From HDD Bore Held Not Foreseeable As A Matter of Law

A Florida circuit court has rejected a claim by a property owner that HDD is an abnormally dangerous activity, and that the HDD contractor cannot be subjected to strict liability for damage alleged to bridge. In an earlier ruling, the court held th


Beginning April 1, FFCRA Requires Employers Of 500 Persons Or Less To Provide Paid Medical Leave To Certain Employees Affected By Covid-19 — But Only If The Employee Can’t “Telework”

The Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”) was passed by Congress and signed by the President on March 18, 2020.  (The law in question is technically titled “Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act” see H.R. 6201 §5101.  We’ll call


Florida Department of Economic Opportunity Is Pushing Out Emergency Bridge Loans to Small Business at 0% Interest For One Year

To assist small businesses to stay open and pay employees during the COVID-19 slowdown, Governor DeSantis has authorized the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity to extend 0% interest emergency bridge loans to small businesses.  The loans ar


HRKM Wins Directed Verdict in Auto Repair Professional Liability Case

An often overlooked consideration during most initial case evaluations, is the applicability of the Statute of Limitations. A prime purpose of the statute of limitations  is to protect defendants from facing surprise and stale claims which positio


HRKM Collaborates with ABC Student Chapter

Hill, Rugh, Keller & Main is proud to be a member of the largest commercial construction trade association, Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC), Central Florida Chapter. According to ABC’s website, “the Central Florida Chapter of ABC i


Statute of Limitations for Roof Defect Claim Runs from Time of Notice of Roof Leak Not Knowledge of the Specific Defect

The Third District Court of Appeal in Covenant Baptist Church, Inc. v. Vasallo Construction, Inc. in an opinion filed on May 22, 2019, held that an owner was barred by the statute of limitations from filing a lawsuit for a defective roof when th


Proposed amendment to ch. 558 would require nonbinding arbitration and allocation of damages to “own work”

During the first week of March, a bill (SB 1246/HB911) to modify the chapter 558 process by adding nonbinding arbitration was filed in the Florida House.  Proposed Sec. 558.045 would require nonbinding arbitration in any construction defect lawsuit


The Repose That Wasn’t: Florida Extends The Statute of Repose For Construction Claims By A Year (Or Maybe More)

Folklore in the construction business is that you can safely throw out your records after seven years because the IRS will only chase you for that long.  Effective July 1, 2018, people in the business need to basically double that period, because o


Protecting Your Business Domain Begins When You Select It

Check out the link below to read HRKM Owner and Partner, Chris Hill’s, Forbes magazine article.


Former Congressman Ric Keller’s T.V. Commentary on President Trump’s SOTU Address

Check out Former Congressman Ric Keller’s T.V. commentary on President Trump’s State of the Union Address (see at 1 min.)


Defending Class Action Lawsuits

Have you been served with a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) class action? If so, several questions come to mind: What is the TCPA? Why am I being sued? How do I make this TCPA lawsuit go away without destroying my business? By


Defending Property Owners When Serious Construction Accidents Happen

Has a construction worker been injured while working on your property?  If so, several questions come to mind: Will I be sued? Do I have enough insurance? Could the millions of dollars sought by plaintiffs’ attorneys for alleged wrongful death or


Is There Still A Right To Setoff Settlement Amounts Paid By A Co-Defendant In A Negligence Case Involving Multiple Defendants

Florida Statute § 768.81, titled “Comparative Fault”, provides a statutory scheme for determining damages in a “negligence action” and apportioning these damages if there are multiple parties involved.  The statute expressly defines a


Florida’s Open House Party Statute: Don’t Be The “Cool” Parents!

Many of our friends have “kids” who are in the 18-20 year old range.  Whether they are older high school students or younger college students, many of them want to have “a few friends over” to Mom and Dad’s house.  Spring Break, graduati


Attorney Ric Keller Discusses State Attorney Aramis Ayala’s Decision To Sue Governor Rick Scott

Check out Ric Keller on this morning’s Fox 35 segment as he discusses recent news of State Attorney, Aramis Ayala’s decision to sue Florida Governor, Ric Scott.


Issues To Consider If Your Personal Injury Claimant Is A Medicare Beneficiary, And Is Being Treated Under Letters Of Protection

One of the more challenging aspects of successful claims resolution arises in situations where a personal injury claimant receives medical care and treatment pursuant to letters of protection.  A letter of protection (“LOP”), of course, is an a


Construction Liens: How Do You Prove The Date Of “Final Furnishing?”

Most construction folks in Florida know that to lien a job, the lienor must file its lien within 90 days of ….something.  An unpaid lienor usually starts focusing on this question sometime after its pay application hasn’t been paid for a month


Chris Hill Receives Golden Gavel Award

HRKM Partner, Chris Hill, was recently awarded Westfield Insurance Company’s Golden Gavel Award! Presented by Jim Schumaker, the Golden Gavel was given to Chris for his outstanding handling of a claim on behalf of Westfield. We want to congratula


Happy Holidays from Everyone at HRKM

Wishing you and your family happiness this Holiday Season and throughout the coming year from all of us at Hill, Rugh, Keller & Main!


HRKM Owner, Chris Hill Participates in Charity Golf Scramble

HRKM Owner and Partner, Chris Hill and friends participated in BASE Camp Children’s Cancer Foundation‘s Golf Scramble this past weekend. HRKM was honored to sponsor this organization which supports children and their families going tho


HRKM Attorneys Attend OCBA Event in Downtown Orlando

HRKM Attorneys, Nick Patrick, Andrew Showen and Scott Reed had the privilege of attending the Orange County Bar Association’s Joint Voluntary Happy Hour in Downtown Orlando last night. Thank you to the OCBA for hosting such a great event!


Hurricane Matthew Reminded Us What Insureds Can Lose When They Give Assignments of Benefits

Hurricane Matthew has brought out repair contractors offering services to property owners who have suffered damages to their homes, businesses and condominiums.  Already we’ve seen one form of agreement between a repair contractor and a condomini


Partners & Staff of HRKM Show Support for Breast Cancer Awareness

In recognition of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, partners and staff of Hill, Rugh, Keller & Main, P.L. “pink-out” the office in Orlando. #BreastCancerAwarenessMonth #PinktoberOrlando


Employee Or Independent Contractor: What You Need To Know

The issue of whether an individual is an employee or an independent contractor for liability purposes is not always clear-cut. To resolve the issue, Florida courts apply a multifactor test, with the most important factor being the “extent of contr


HRKM Attorney’s Winning Verdict in Asian Antiques Case

Chris Hill recently won a jury trial in a commercial litigation case for a local antiques dealer.  HRKM filed suit on behalf of a family-owned Winter Park company, seeking to collect more than $1 million from purchasers located in Chicago.  Th


Aerial Photos Provide Inexpensive and Compelling Evidence

HRKM lawyers used aerial photography taken over time in a recent trial to prove that a property had numerous gaps in a fence line which the plaintiff claimed was secure.  In the above photo from property appraiser’s public records, one can se


HRKM Staff Attends Popular Networking Event in Orlando

Partner, Ric Keller and staff of HRKM had the privilege of attending TCU Construction’s Networking Event at Bar Louie last Thursday. Our staff had an amazing time meeting everyone who participated in this occasion!


HRKM Lawyers Recover Costs From Plaintiff After Dismissal of Warehouse Fire Case

Chris Hill and Andy Showen secured a judgment of dismissal at the close of plaintiff’s case in a Federal court trial in Orlando in December 2015.  The court taxed defense costs against the plaintiff of over $17,000 in post-trial proceedings, whic


Can Legal Draftsmanship Fix The Florida Constitution Statute of Repose Problem?

We often hear that Florida has a ten year statute of repose for claims arising out of construction.[1]  Contractors design their risk management plans (such as they are) assuming there is an absolute ten year bar against lawsuits.  But the ten yea


“What Do You Mean We Have To Go To Pennsylvania To Enforce Our Warranty?”: Roof Replacement, Venue Clauses, Warranty Limitations, And Other Pitfalls In Condominium Repair Contracts

The Life and Death of a Roof: A condominium building with a low-slope roof (commonly but incorrectly referred to as a “flat” roof) will need a reroof every seven to twenty years. This is a major budget item that can cost from $8 to $15 per squar


Performance Bonds , Indemnity Agreements and Contractor’s Spouses

Building contractors often have to provide performance bonds to owners. Do their spouses understand they are cosigning for those bonds and may lose their homes and personal assets when obtaining the bond? Contractors’ spouses’ risk on bon