In GEICO v. Ryan, No. 4D13-2615 (Fla. 4th DCA, Mar. 11, 2015), the Court reversed the Trial Court's award of attorney's fees in favor of the insured because the "Proposal for Settlement contains a patent ambiguity--spelling out $100,000 in words but also referring to $50,000 in numerals." Specifically, Bernadette Ryan ("Ryan") brought an uninsured/underinsured motorist claim against her insurer, Government Employees Insurance Company ("GEICO"), for an auto accident involving Ryan. Ryan served GEICO with a proposal for settlement, pursuant to Fla. Stat. 768.79 and Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442. As noted, the proposal for settlement contained a typo that included a difference between the spelled out amount and the numeric amount. It should be noted, however, that the applicable GEICO policy limits were $50,000, and the proposal for settlement included a statement that "the total amount of the settlement should not exceed $50,000." Additionally, no testimony or other evidence was taken by the Trial Court, but "it was represented to the [Trial] court that the attorneys talked about a settlement and the defense attorney fully knew the settlement proposal." As such, the Trial Court entered final judgment in favor of Ryan.

GEICO appealed the Trial Court's award of attorney's fees in favor of Ryan. In reversing the Trial Court, the Court of Appeals discussed the foregoing ambiguity and reasoned: "Because the offer of judgment statute and related rule must be strictly construed, virtually any proposal that is ambiguous is not enforceable." (quoting Stasio v. McManaway, 936 So. 2d 676, 678 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (italics in original).) Thus, "[t]he trial judge had no basis in law or fact to conclude otherwise."