Appeals Court Reverses Trial Court Finding that Proposal for Settlement Made by Carrier to Insured was not Ambiguous
Sec. First Ins. Co. v. Cincotta, 2025 WL 3714668 (Fla. 6th DCA 2025)
The Sixth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order denying Security First Insurance Company’s motion for attorney’s fees. The trial court ruled that the proposal for settlement (PFS) served by Security First on the insureds, Dominick Cincotta and Dominick Cincotta on behalf of the deceased Aurea Cincotta, was ambiguous. The appellate court reversed finding that there was no ambiguity in the PFS when it was interpreted as a whole.
The Cincottas purchased home insurance from Security First in 2014 through an insurance agency, Cochran Insurance, Inc. The Cincottas reported a fire loss to their home, which Security investigated. In the course of its investigation, Security First determined that the Cincottas failed to disclose a 2013 fire loss to the property on their insurance application to Security First. The Cincottas also failed to disclose a prior non-renewal of their insurance policy based upon the 2013 fire loss. Security First then rescinded the policy and denied coverage for the loss.
Cincotta proceeded to file suit against both Security First and Cochran. The claim against Cochran was abated and the lawsuit against Security First proceeded on the question of coverage. During the litigation, Security First served a PFS that included the following language:
“1. The party making the proposal is Security First Insurance Company (“Security First”). The party to whom the proposal is being made is Dominick Cincotta.
2. This proposal resolves all damages that would otherwise be awarded to Dominick Cincotta in a final judgment in this action except for attorney’s fees and costs as set forth below.”
Security First obtained summary judgment in its favor and moved to enforce the PFS. The trial court held a hearing on Security First’s motion for entitlement and found that Security First was the prevailing party and entitled to costs. The trial court denied the motion as to attorney’s fees, finding that the PFS was ambiguous based upon the language in the second paragraph, stating it was “unclear whether Security First is requiring the Cincotta’s’ to give up their claims against Cochran as part of this.”
In reversing the trial court’s order, the Sixth DCA stated the PFS was sufficiently clear to inform Cincotta that the claim against Cochran was not being given up. The appellate court stated that while the second paragraph in isolation could be seen as vague, when the PFS was read as a whole, it was clear that the claims were limited to Security First. The appellate court pointed out that the PFS did not require dismissal against Cochran and, in fact, did not mention Cochran anywhere. The appellate court quoted language from Allen v. Nunez, 258 So. 3d 1207, 1211 (Fla. 2018) (citing State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 932 So. 2d 1067, 1079 (Fla. 2006)) stating, “courts are discouraged from ‘nitpicking’ proposals for settlement to search for ambiguity.” The appellate court looked at paragraph one, which specifically identified Security First as the party making the proposal, as well as other paragraphs that identified Security First as the party that would be paying the settlement amount and being the party that would be dismissed if the proposal was accepted. Based on these factors, the appellate court found no ambiguity in the proposal for settlement and reversed the order denying Security First’s entitlement to attorney’s fees.