Jain v. Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC
A legal malpractice plaintiff sued an attorney and his firm (the firm only vicariously). The attorney alone served a section 768.79 offer of judgment, prevailed, and sought fees; the plaintiff argued he incurred no fees because the firm indemnified him and paid defense counsel. The Third DCA affirmed, holding that fees paid by the firm under retainer and indemnification obligations were 'incurred . . . on the defendant's behalf' under section 768.79(1), and that apportionment was unnecessary where the work defending the attorney and the vicariously liable firm was identical.
Key facts
- Legal malpractice plaintiff sued an attorney defendant and his firm (the firm sued vicariously only) for alleged professional negligence.
- The attorney defendant alone served a statutory offer of judgment under section 768.79; plaintiff did not accept the offer.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
The opinion confirms that an individual defendant indemnified by an employer, insurer, or affiliated entity can still recover proposal-for-settlement fees, removing a common 'no fees incurred' defense to 768.79… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.