Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...That attorney, who did not represent the wife in the divorce action, moved for a protective order. At the hearing on his motion, the wife's counsel in the dissolution proceeding argued, as he does on appeal, that evidence of the offer to the insurance company was inadmissible as an offer to compromise under section 90.408, Florida Statutes (1993). The trial court granted the motion for protective order, presumably on the authority of section 90.408. The husband was, therefore, prevented from presenting evidence about the possible value of this asset. Under section 90.408, "[e]vidence of an offer to compromise a claim which was disputed as to validity or amount ......

...he lawsuit. Rease v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 644 So.2d 1383, 1388 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). The offer here pertained to the claim contested in Mrs. Ritter's personal injury lawsuit; it did not propose to settle any issue in her divorce proceeding. As such, section 90.408 did not bar admission of evidence concerning the offer in this case....

...' motion to dismiss as to violation of § 1692e(11) must be denied. The Court has recognized Defendants' argument that the letters were part of a settlement agreement, and as such are privileged communications, which are inadmissible under Fla.Stat. § 90.408....

...s of *1569 the debtor to the protection offered by the FDCPA would be seriously hindered. This Court is not persuaded that providing a debtor with the amount of the debt owed is a settlement agreement. Settlement agreements as protected by Fla.Stat. § 90.408 are "offers to compromise a claim." The definition of "compromise" is a "settlement of differences by mutual concessions," there were no mutual concessions in the amounts indicated in the letters sent by Defendants....

...4th DCA 2007), review granted, 977 So.2d 577, 2008 WL 1746024 (Fla.2008), which expressly and directly conflicts with the decision of the Third District Court of Appeal in Ellis v. Weisbrot, 550 So.2d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. Both sections 768.041 and 90.408, Florida Statutes (2006), prohibit the admission at trial of any evidence of settlement or dismissal of a defendant....

...n because the company was immune from liability in tort under Florida's workers' compensation statute. See § 440.11(1), Fla. Stat. (1999). In his appeal to the Fourth District, Saleeby argued, as he did in the trial court, that sections 768.041 and 90.408, Florida Statutes (2006), prohibited the admission of evidence of settlement and that violation of these statutes is clear reversible error....

...The district court, however, held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence because "Herring had first rendered this opinion when he was a defendant with a pecuniary interest in the case." Saleeby, 965 So.2d at 215. The Fourth District reasoned as follows: Section 90.408 excludes evidence of a settlement to prove liability; courts may, however, admit settlement-related evidence if offered for other purposes, such as proving witness bias or prejudice....

...Carsten, 624 So.2d 241, 247 n. 4 (Fla.1993) (evidence of a settlement with a codefendant who remained in the case was admissible since "the jury was entitled to weigh the codefendant's actions [at trial] in light of its knowledge that such a settlement has been reached."). Section 90.408 was enacted to protect against the prejudicial effect that settlement evidence may have on a jury....

...Similarly, another statute provides: Evidence of an offer to compromise a claim which was disputed as to validity or amount, as well as any relevant conduct or statements made in negotiations concerning a compromise, is inadmissible to prove liability or absence of liability for the claim or its value. § 90.408, Fla....

...articipate as a defendant in the case. None of the concerns of fraud and unethical conduct propagated by Mary Carter Agreements are present here. Rather, the facts of the case fall entirely within the purview and prohibitions of sections 768.041 and 90.408....

...endant." Id. Accordingly, the appellate court found that admission of the evidence of settlement was reversible error and remanded for new trial. Id. at 64. Jordan and other cases fully illustrate the prejudice that results when sections 768.041 and 90.408 are violated: "[I]t is a practical impossibility to eradicate from the jury's minds the considerations that where there has been a payment there must have been liability." Jordan, 186 So.2d at 63 (quoting Fenberg v....

...Beacon Ambulance Serv., Inc., 424 So.2d 914, 916 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (reversing and remanding for new trial where disclosure of settlement to jury violated section 768.041(3)). From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that violation of sections 768.041 and 90.408 is reversible error....

...See Sheffield, 800 So.2d at 203 ("We hold that once a trial court makes an unequivocal ruling admitting evidence over a movant's motion in limine, the movant's subsequent introduction of that evidence does not constitute a waiver of the error for appellate review."). Second, Elson claims that sections 768.041 and 90.408 do not apply when the former defendant testifies as an expert witness for the plaintiff....

...Accordingly, we reject Elson's proposed expert witness exception to these statutes. Based on our previous discussion, we also reject without further discussion Elson's attendant suggestion that Dosdourian required the disclosure. IV. CONCLUSION As explained above, we find that the plain language of sections 768.041(3) and 90.408 expressly prohibits the admission at trial of evidence of settlement and that a defendant has been dismissed from the suit....

...ire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Blackmon, 754 So.2d 840, 843 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). I therefore would approve the result reached by the Fourth District. POLSTON, J., dissenting. I respectfully dissent. Unlike the majority, I do not believe that sections 90.408 and 768.041, Florida Statutes (2006), prohibit the admission of evidence of settlement or dismissal of a defendant when such evidence is offered to demonstrate that a witness is biased or prejudiced....

...a settlement *1090 offered to prove bias or interest of the witness, the Florida Supreme Court implicitly overruled those cases in Dosdourian. Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence, § 408.1, at 308-09 (2008) (footnotes omitted). More specifically, section 90.408, Florida Statutes (2006), provides: Evidence of an offer to compromise a claim which was disputed as to validity or amount, as well as any relevant conduct or statements made in negotiations concerning a compromise, is inadmissible to prove liability or absence of liability for the claim or its value. (Emphasis added.) Thus, the plain language of section 90.408 prohibits the admission of evidence of compromises and offers of compromise only when such evidence is offered "to prove liability or absence of liability for the claim or its value." § 90.408, Fla....

...State, 413 So.2d 1, 6 (Fla.1982) ("Merely because a statement is not admissible for one purpose does not mean it is inadmissible for another purpose."). Therefore, while evidence of a settlement is inadmissible to prove liability or the value of a claim pursuant to section 90.408, such evidence is admissible for other purposes, such as to prove the bias or prejudice of a witness. See Bankers Trust Co. v. Basciano, 960 So.2d 773, 780 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) ("If the evidence is offered for another purpose, the evidence is not barred by section 90.408 and will be admissible if it is relevant to prove a material fact or issue, subject to section 90.403."); Wolowitz v. Thoroughbred Motors, Inc., 765 So.2d 920, 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) ("Section 90.408 excludes evidence of settlement negotiations only when the evidence is offered to prove liability, the absence of liability, or value. Thus, evidence of settlement negotiations is admissible to establish other relevant facts."); see also Agan v. Katzman & Korr, P.A., 328 F.Supp.2d 1363 (S.D.Fla.2004) (holding that settlement documents were admissible under both section 90.408 and Federal Rule of Evidence 408 because the documents were offered not to establish liability, but to establish violation of consumer credit laws). [8] "The concept of limited admissibility applies to evidence of settlement and compromise negotiations." Ehrhardt, § 408.1, at 309. In contrast to section 90.408, section 768.041 includes a more general prohibition against admitting evidence of a settlement....

...at 247 n. 4. Thus, this Court in Dosdourian held that an exception to the general prohibition of section 768.041(3) exists when the otherwise inadmissible evidence is offered to prove bias or prejudice. In light of the above, I would conclude that sections 90.408 and 768.041(3) do not prohibit the admission of evidence of a settlement or dismissal of a defendant when such evidence is offered to prove a witness's bias or prejudice....

...the other defendants, he could diminish or eliminate his own liability by use of the secret "Mary Carter Agreement." Ward, 284 So.2d at 387. [4] Section 54.28, Florida Statutes (1963), was subsequently renumbered as section 768.041 and amended. [5] Section 90.408, Florida Statutes (2006), which deals with settlement offers and negotiations — as distinct from settlement agreements — has no application in the instant case....

...(1995) (allowing the trial judge to exercise reasonable control over the presentation of evidence to avoid needless consumption of time). In the alternative, Wolowitz argues that even if the "contract confirmation" is relevant it should nevertheless be excluded under section 90.408, Florida Statutes (1995), which he contends bars all evidence of unsuccessful settlement negotiations. However, this is too broad a reading of the statute. Section 90.408 excludes evidence of settlement negotiations only when the evidence is offered to prove liability, the absence of liability, or value....

...Thus, evidence of settlement negotiations is admissible to establish other relevant facts. See William R. Eleazer & Glen Weissenberger, Florida Evidence 209 (1998 ed.). To the extent that the "contract confirmation" addresses issues other than liability and value, it would not necessarily be excluded under section 90.408....

...Count II requested specific performance of the Stuckeys' alleged agreement to give Ray a 90-day note in lieu of repayment. Nipper filed a motion to dismiss Count II for failure to state a cause of action in that it relied on Nipper's letter to Ray, allegedly inadmissible under Section 90.408 as an offer to settle a dispute....

...The trial court denied the motion to disqualify finding that "[p]laintiff (Ray) has not demonstrated that the anticipated testimony will or might prejudice his (Nipper's) clients' interests." Ray and the Stuckeys rely heavily on the applicability or not of Section 90.408....

...on by the plaintiff MGIC that it was at fault in the instant tort incident as alleged in the original complaint; settlements or offers of settlement have never been considered admissions against interest binding on the parties making them. See e.g., § 90.408, Fla....

...efendants in connection with attempts to collect the Agans' purported delinquent condominium assessments. Essentially, Defendants contend that these pre-billing worksheets are confidential and inadmissible, pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 408 and Fla. Stat. § 90.408, because they were obtained during settlement negotiations....

...Moreover, these pre-billing worksheets served to substantiate the terms presented to resolve the foreclosure action. A review, therefore, of the *1368 evidence and testimony presented shows that they must be treated as settlement documents, at least to trigger the next step in the inquiry under Fed. Rule 408 and Fla. Stat. § 90.408....

...state court action. Accordingly, Exhibits C and D must be found, as a matter of fact, to be settlement documents that on their surface may be protected from disclosure or admissibility under Rule 408. B. Application of Fed.R.Evid. 408 and Fla. Stat. § 90.408 As argued by Defendants, it is well established that public policy favors the settlement of disputes and avoidance of court litigation whenever possible. In fact, in both the state and federal systems, rules have been codified in order to protect and promote this policy. See Fed.R.Evid. 408; Fla. Stat. § 90.408; see, e.g., Central Soya Co....

...Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 872 F.Supp. 81, 94 (S.D.N.Y.1995). As such, even though Exhibits C and D are settlement documents, exclusion — especially at this early stage of the litigation — is not necessarily mandated. Although Defendants maintain that Fed.R.Evid. 408 and Fla. Stat. § 90.408 provide to the contrary, it is apparent that in light of the burden required to strike any pleadings and the correct interpretation of these rules of evidence, these particular documents fall outside the protections usually afforded to the products of settlement negotiations....

...Phillips Petroleum Co., 815 F.2d 1356, 1362-66 (10th Cir.1987) (to show a course of reckless conduct); County of Hennepin v. AFG Indus., Inc., 726 F.2d 149, 153 (8th Cir.1984) (for impeachment). Likewise, Florida law, on which Defendants principally rely in support of their motion, recognizes this exception under Fla. Stat. § 90.408....

...was disputed as to validity *1372 or amount, as well as any relevant conduct or statements made in negotiations concerning a comprise, is inadmissible to prove liability or absence of liability for the claim or its value. In other words, "[s]ection 90.408 excludes evidence of settlement negotiations only when the evidence is offered to prove liability, the absence of liability, or value....

...brokerage fees. The Second District Court of Appeals reasoned that, although the settlement in the prior case was not an offer of settlement in the present case, it was a settlement of a closely related issue and should be excluded under Fla. Stat. § 90.408....

...The Court recognizes the worthy and broad protections offered to settlement documents. However, as demonstrated in this matter, there are well-recognized exceptions to every rule. Because the provided information is otherwise discoverable and/or being offered for another permissible reason, Fed.R.Evid. 408 and Fla. Stat. § 90.408 do not prohibit the reliance on Exhibit C and D in the Plaintiffs' complaint or their attachment to this pleading....

...ld have better safeguarded the confidential nature of the documents and better protected Defendants from the repercussions of their disclosure. And, third, even assuming Defendants are right in principle, *1374 neither Federal Rule 408 or Fla. Stat. § 90.408 provides them with a blanket protection under these circumstances, and especially at the pleading stage of this case....

...The Court does not find that these exhibits confuse the issues, unnecessarily prejudice a party or lack relationship to the controversy. Furthermore, Exhibits C and D are settlement documents, the Court is not persuaded that they must be stricken from the complaint under Fed.R.Evid. 408 and/or Fla. Stat. § 90.408....

...t of other claims was admissible to show notice. We conclude that this constituted error. It is well-established that evidence demonstrating that a defendant settled other claims involving the same product deprives the defendant of a fair trial. See § 90.408, Fla....

...willingness to "turn over the keys" to the hotel if a workout agreement wasn't reached. [2] The trial court sustained Mr. Basciano's objection to the introduction of the March letters, concluding that they were settlement proposals, excludable under section 90.408, Florida Statutes (1999)....

...Exclusion of the March letters was error. This was a non-recourse loan, making only 3835 liable. There was no dispute between Mr. Basciano and Appellants as to the validity of the debt or the *780 amount in controversy. If there is no dispute as to validity or amount, the section 90.408 prohibition does not apply because there is nothing to compromise; any statements made by a party would be admissible if relevant. Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 408.1 (2006 ed.). Further, section 90.408 only excludes evidence offered to prove "liability or absence of liability for the claim or its value." § 90.408, Fla. Stat. (1999). If the evidence is offered for another purpose, the evidence is not barred by section 90.408 and will be admissible if it is relevant to prove a material fact or issue, subject to section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1999)....

needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” § 90.408, Fla. Stat. (2006). The fact that “a photograph

...City's trial brief. The record does not reflect that Book objected to the evidence, which was irrelevant to the City's liability under section 768.28, Florida Statutes, the lawfulness of Book's arrest, or the nature and extent of Book's damages, see section 90.408, Florida Statutes (1997) (compromise and offers to compromise not admissible to prove liability or value of the claim)....

...s v. Hillman Garment Inc., 87 So.2d 599 (Fla. 1956) (contract to arbitrate not enforceable by injunction). Generally, this view was based on the notion that such agreements constituted an attempt to oust courts of their lawful jurisdiction. [22] See § 90.408 Fla....

...However, the rule protecting offers of compromise appears to be one more of admissibility than privilege. C. McCormick, McCormick on Evidence § 274 (2d ed. 1972); 4 J. Wigmore, Wigmore on Evidence § 1061 (rev. ed. 1972). The admissibility of offers to compromise is addressed in section 90.408, Florida Statutes (1983): 90.408 Compromise and offers to compromise....

outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See § 90.408, Fla. Stat. (2010). The admissibility of. evidence

...Robert Williams, wherein Anheuser-Busch stated that it considered Janet Rease "terminated." Anheuser-Busch contended that this letter was written in the context of settlement negotiations involving Rease's workers' compensation claim for benefits and thus was inadmissible under section 90.408, Florida Statutes (1991)....

...For these reasons, the cause must be reversed and remanded for a new trial. Finally, we hold that the trial court erred in ruling that a July 9, 1991, letter from E. Robert Williams to Claimant's workers' compensation attorney was inadmissible as an offer to compromise a claim pursuant to section 90.408, Florida Statutes....

...the intent to settle her claim for a lump-sum amount of workers' compensation benefits pursuant to section 440.20, Florida Statutes. There is no evidence to indicate that the letter was written in the context of settlement negotiations in this case. Section 90.408 provides that "[e]vidence of an offer to compromise a claim which was disputed as to validity or amount, as well as any relevant conduct or statements made in negotiations concerning a compromise, is inadmissible to prove liability or...

...e to the claim disputed in the lawsuit. In the present case, the excluded letter pertained to negotiations authorized by a different section of the Workers' Compensation Act. Thus, the circumstances are different from those cases that have construed section 90.408 to prohibit the admission of offers of compromise and statements made in negotiation in different, but related cases....

...1987), in ruling that it was error for the court to admit a letter from plaintiffs' counsel to a third party suggesting that the third party was actually responsible for the plaintiffs' damages and proposing a settlement of the plaintiffs' claim against that party, the fourth district ruled that section 90.408 "applies to settlement offers made to third parties as well as parties to the litigation." Id....

...olation of section 440.205. Instead, the letter related to the parties' statutorily authorized option to settle Rease's workers' compensation claim by paying her a lump-sum amount, an entirely *1389 different and collateral matter. [6] Consequently, section 90.408 does not apply to this situation....

...e type of a limiting instruction in order to avert any possible misunderstanding on the jury's part concerning the relevance of this evidence to the issues of liability and damages. [5] Scott v. Otis Elevator Co., 572 So.2d 902, 903 (Fla. 1990). [6] Section 90.408 has also been held not to apply when the offer of settlement was written prior to the initiation of the lawsuit....

...Code who has opined that "[t]o further the policy underlying the rule of encouraging settlement of disputes without regard to the judicial process, the better rule is not to require that a suit be filed or even threatened; rather, the protection of section 90.408 should be invoked in today's litigious society when the party making the statement reasonably believed that the controversy would result in legal proceedings if the matter was not settled." See Charles W....

the danger of the evidence’s unfair prejudice. § 90.408 (“Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative

...was clearly an unaccepted offer of compromise and settlement made by the defendant Williams Island and could form no basis for any of the relief sought by the plaintiffs. Benoit, Inc. v. District Bd. of Trustees, 463 So.2d 1260 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); § 90.408, Fla....

...learly and expressly stated in the contract addendum and initialed in each particular by appellants' executing officers. Appellants seek to exclude the testimony of their subsequent *52 conversations with appellee's representatives on the basis that section 90.408, Florida Statutes (1987), prohibits admission of evidence of offers to compromise a claim disputed as to validity or amount and any relevant conduct or statements made in any such negotiations....

...We agree with the trial judge that the statements were properly admitted into evidence. Repudiating a contract or attempting to induce the other party to agree to substantially new terms does not constitute an offer to compromise a claim as is contemplated by section 90.408....

...The former wife also argues that the $422,000 payments are evidence of the former husband's indebtedness of at least that amount, ignoring Florida law prohibiting a partial payment in settlement of a debt from serving as evidence of the indebtedness. See § 90.408, Fla....

flood insurance benefits is inadmissible under section 90.408, Florida Statutes, also fails, as that statute

...the jury's minds the considerations that where there has been a payment there must have been liability," id. at 1085 (quoting City of Coral Gables v. Jordan, 186 So.2d 60, 63 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)). These objectives are embodied in sections 768.041 and 90.408, Florida Statutes (2010). Section 768.041(3) ordinarily prohibits the disclosure to the jury of "a release or covenant not to sue, or that any defendant has been dismissed by order of the court," and section 90.408 provides that "[e]vidence of an offer to compromise a claim which was disputed as to validity or amount, as well as any relevant conduct or statements made in negotiations concerning a compromise, is inadmissible to prove liability or...

...The guardian and the appellees filed a petition requesting that the probate court adopt and enforce their proposed global settlement agreement. After a hearing, the trial court entered an order ratifying the bullet-points agreement drafted on July 18, and making it an order of the court. The court found that the 3 § 90.408, Fla....

...pt to avoid the settlement terms because of alleged misrepresentation. Statements during settlement negotiations concerning liability, the absence of liability, or value, are privileged and inadmissible in subsequent proceedings in the same case. § 90.408, Fla....

...Similarly, we believe it was error for the trial court to admit a letter from appellants' counsel to another party suggesting that the other party was responsible for appellants' damages and proposing a settlement of appellants' claim against that party. In addition to the fact that the letter was not authored by appellants, Section 90.408, Florida Statutes (1983) bars the receipt into evidence of offers to compromise....

precluded by some specific rule of exclusion.” Section 90.408, Florida Statutes (2007), provides that “[Relevant

...to determine which party was the prevailing party pursuant to C.U. Associates. The trial court, however, granted rehearing without an evidentiary hearing. In most cases, evidence of presuit settlement negotiations is not admissible during trial. See § 90.408, Fla....

outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under section 90.408, Florida Statutes, since it is an official

...consent decree and disposition of settlement funds. The State filed a motion for protective *2 order which alleged: (1) the information sought is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery under the Public Records Act; (2) the Evidence Code § 90.408 precludes such discovery; (3) the discovery sought is the State's work product....

...o the criminal charges. The trial court, however, consistent with section 90.403 excluded the agreements because of potential prejudice or confusion, and barred the admission of compromise and offers to compromise relying for that determination upon section 90.408, Florida Statutes (1993)....

...McClain, 525 So.2d 420 (Fla. 1988); Jent v. State, 408 So.2d 1024 (Fla. 1981). We find no abuse in the trial court's application of section 90.403 in this instance and affirm its order. Although we find it unnecessary to pass upon the court's expressed belief that section 90.408 bars the evidence at issue, the substance of the rule does appear to confine its applicability to civil proceedings....

settlement or dismissal of a joint tortfeasor, and section 90.408, which bars the disclosure of evidence of an

...At trial, Saleeby called John Herring, president of A-1 Roof Trusses, as an expert witness. Herring opined that the trusses collapsed not due to a manufacturing defect, but because of the way that they were installed. Herring had first rendered this opinion when he was a defendant with a pecuniary interest in the case. Section 90.408 excludes evidence of a settlement to prove liability; courts may, however, admit settlement-related evidence if offered for other purposes, such as proving witness bias or prejudice....

...4 (Fla.1993) (evidence of a settlement with a codefendant who remained in the case was admissible since "the jury was entitled to weigh the codefendant's actions [at trial] in light of its knowledge that such *216 a settlement has been reached."). Section 90.408 was enacted to protect against the prejudicial effect that settlement evidence may have on a jury....

danger of unfair prejudice or confusion of issues. § 90.408, Fla. Stat. (2012). On this record, allowing cross-examination

...As the petitioner argues about the prospective admissibility of evidence that may be obtained in the deposition, it is not appropriate for review by certiorari. It is difficult to determine at this stage the purpose for which the respondents would offer such evidence. See § 90.408, Fla....

Acevedo collided with [the plaintiff.] . Section 90.408, Florida Statutes (2012) provides: "Evidence

State, 660 So.2d 244, 251 (Fla.1995). However, section 90.408, Florida Statutes (2010) requires exclusion

needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” See § 90.408, Fla. Stat. (2007). Here, the Bendix employee’s

the first accident, violated section 90.408, Florida Statutes. Section 90.408, Florida Statutes (2010),1

...lement between the Haters and FFD. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting evidence of the settlement. As a general rule, offers to compromise a disputed claim are not admissible to prove liability for the claim. § 90.408, Fla....

...nt against her is proper. I think the form of the decree against her is plain error. NOTES [1] We agree with the Levins that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of settlement offers on the ground that settlement offers are inadmissible under section 90.408, Florida Statutes....

settlement offer was inadmissible, pursuant to section 90.408, Florida Statutes (2019). That section provides:

binding on the parties making them. See e.g., § 90.408, Fla.Stat. (1981); McCormick, Handbook of the

provisions of Florida's Evidence Code, including section 90.408, Florida Statutes (1995), governing the admissibility

admissions because they were excludable under section 90.408, Florida Statutes (1997), as they constituted

under their counterclaims; 6 . § 90.408, Fla. Stat. (2012). 7 . The trial

case and was not “unduly prejudicial” under section 90.408. On a separate issue, the trial court erred

underlying § 90.408 [regarding compromise and offers to compromise].” The revision note under § 90.408 explains

evidence by Cancio in support of his claims. See § 90.408, Fla. Stat. (2014) (entitled “Compromise and

promote this policy. See Fed.R.Evid. 408; Fla. Stat. § 90.408; see, e.g., Central Soya Co. v. Epstein Fisheries

claim and thus would be inadmissible under section 90.408, Florida Statutes (2012). That may or may not

Inc., 424 So.2d 135, 136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), § 90.408, Fla.Stat. (1985). Admission of this settlement

inadmissible as an offer of compromise under section 90.408, Florida Statutes (1983)1 because there was

fees and costs in favor of Jones College. See § 90.408, Fla. Stat. (2007); Sharp v. Williams, 141 Fla

inadmissible evidence of a settlement negotiation. See § 90.408, Fla. Stat. (2024) (“Evidence of an offer to compromise

...It was an offer to settle or compromise St. John's claim against Benoit. The trial judge simply blocked out that part of the letter pertaining to the settlement offer and admitted the remainder. That is improper under the Florida Rules of Evidence. Section 90.408, Florida Statutes (1983), provides: Evidence of an offer to compromise a claim which was disputed as to validity or amount as well as any relevant conduct or statements made in negotiations, concerning a compromise, is inadmissible to prove liability or absence of liability for the claim or its value. (Emphasis supplied). We agree with Atwater v. Gulf Maintenance & Supply, 424 So.2d 135 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), that any part of a letter offering a settlement between the parties is barred by section 90.408....

...ges." Swan v. Wisdom, 386 So.2d 574, 576 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). MOTION FOR REHEARING GRANTED. COBB, C.J., and FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., JJ., concur. NOTES [1] 1 Gard Florida Evidence § 4.24 at 191 (1980). [2] See the law revision council note following section 90.408: Florida purports to follow the common-law rule that the exclusion does not apply to admission of fact....

vehicle. We agree. This violates section 90.408, Florida Statutes. See § 90.408, Fla. Stat. (2023) (“Evidence

which made the statement privileged pursuant to section 90.408, Florida Statutes (1995). At the hearing on

a controversy is pending are inadmissible. Section 90.408, Florida Statutes; Mutual Benefit Health &

post-suit payments tendered by Tower Hill. Section 90.408, Florida Statutes (2011), provides that “[e]vidence

improper under the Florida Rules of Evidence. Section 90.408, Florida Statutes (1983), provides: Evidence

Department of Financial Services, pursuant to section 90.408, Florida Statutes (2017). We review a trial

inadmissible offer to compromise or settle under section 90.408, Florida Statutes (1985), and (2) whether the

("[T]he rule protecting offers of compromise [section 90.408] appears to be one more of admissibility than

$475,000. We disagree. The county argues that section 90.408, Florida Statutes (1995), prohibits the introduction