I know it's April Fool's Day and all, so I was not expecting the Florida Supreme Court to be so blunt and well....honest in how screwed up offer of judgment law is in the State of Florida:
The expected result of the attorneys‟ fee sanction was to reduce litigation costs and conserve judicial resources by encouraging the settlement of legal actions. See Sarkis v. Allstate Ins. Co., 863 So. 2d 210, 218 (Fla. 2003). The effect, however, has been in sharp contrast to the intended outcome because the statute and rule have seemingly increased litigation as parties dispute the respective validity and enforceability of these offers. See, e.g., Security Professionals, Inc. v. Segall, 685 So. 2d 1381, 1384 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (“We regret that this case is just one more example of the offer of judgment statute causing a proliferation of litigation, rather than fostering its primary goal to „terminate all claims, end disputes, and obviate the need for further intervention of the judicial process.‟ ”) (quoting Unicare Health Facilities, Inc. v. Mort, 553 So. 2d 159, 161 (Fla. 1989)).No s*^t, Sherlock.
I can't even believe there was reasoned debate over whether or not this proposal for settlement was valid:
This offer is conditioned upon the offer being accepted by both John W. Gorka and Laurel Lee Larson. In other words, the offer can only be accepted if both John W. Gorka and Laurel Lee Larson accept and neither Plaintiff can independently accept the offer without their co-plaintiff joining in the settlement.So you're basically offering a twisted version of the prisoner's dilemma?
Gotta love this crazy State.