Arbitration

“What is the value of my claim?” Why Settlement Value Can Be Difficult to Assess in Florida Litigation and How to Resolve the Challenge

, , ,

As long as I can remember, the central question in each of the cases I handled on the civil side was “What is the value of this case? What would a jury award if it goes to trial?” As a mediator, I encounter this question every day, and since none of us can truly foresee what lies ahead, the answer remains uncertain. And to add another wrinkle of complication – settlement value – can be and is different – from what a jury or a judge may ultimately award. Assessing settlement value is challenging in any jurisdiction, to be sure. Yet our beautiful state of Florida adds additional layers of complexity that experienced trial lawyers encounter daily. Venue variability, economic disparities, jury discretion, evolving statutory frameworks, and procedural pressures all shape how cases resolve in practice in each geographic area. Across personal injury, property damage, employment, and construction disputes, settlement assessment requires more than just legal analysis. It requires an understanding of how Florida litigation actually functions on the ground and how it can change daily depending on what is happening in this state.

Florida is not a uniform litigation environment: Outcomes can vary significantly depending on where a case is tried. After not only having lived in various parts of this state, but also handled matters venued throughout its various and vastly different counties – it is a true statement to say that a case in Key Largo, FL will not be the same case in Niceville, FL. A matter venued in Miami-Dade, Palm Beach or Hillsborough may present a very different risk and valuation profile than the same case tried in Pinellas, Pasco, Escambia or Duval. Jury composition, local norms, and historical verdict patterns all influence how claims are received. In personal injury cases, perceptions of non-economic damages often differ substantially across venues. In employment litigation, attitudes toward employers, retaliation claims, and workplace policies vary by county and sometimes even by neighborhood. Construction disputes may be shaped by local familiarity with development projects, contractors, insurers, and the practical realities of large-scale construction. When settlement discussions rely on verdicts or expectations drawn from dissimilar venues, expectations can drift unless those differences are addressed directly.

Jury discretion further complicates settlement assessment in Florida: Jurors retain broad authority in determining damages, assessing credibility, and weighing expert testimony. In personal injury matters, even carefully developed medical causation evidence may be discounted or amplified depending on how a plaintiff is perceived. Property damage cases often turn on competing expert opinions regarding scope, causation, and repair methodology, with outcomes driven less by technical precision than by which narrative resonates most. Employment cases frequently hinge on credibility and storytelling rather than strict legal compliance. Construction disputes can involve complex schedules, change orders, and defect causation that are difficult for juries to fully absorb or understand, increasing outcome variability. Strong advocacy does not eliminate this uncertainty. It exists alongside it.

Florida’s statutory and procedural landscape also plays a meaningful role: Recent changes in comparative fault standards, attorney’s fee provisions, notice requirements, and presuit obligations continue to affect exposure and leverage, particularly in personal injury and property insurance litigation. In property damage cases, coverage disputes, appraisal outcomes, and policy interpretation can materially alter exposure well into the life of a case. Construction claims are frequently shaped by lien rights, notice compliance, and contractual dispute resolution provisions. Employment cases often involve administrative prerequisites and fee-shifting frameworks that influence risk on both sides. Settlement assessment benefits from revisiting these factors as cases evolve rather than assuming early evaluations remain fixed.

Emotion and personal investment are ever-present in Florida litigation: Injured plaintiffs may experience settlement discussions as failing to reflect the full impact of their injuries and lived experience. Florida’s expansive attorney advertising environment can also further shape expectations by anchoring values for claimants and jurors that differ sharply from how defendants (and insurers) assess exposure. Property owners may perceive disputes as challenges to their credibility or personal integrity. Employees frequently frame claims around dignity and fairness, not solely financial recovery. Contractors and developers may prioritize reputation, precedent, and the effect of outcomes on future business relationships. These perspectives are not only understandable, they also shape how risk is perceived and how proposals are received, particularly as litigation fatigue accumulates over time. Some Florida cases develop heightened conflict that further complicates resolution. Coverage denials, contentious employment terminations, publicly visible construction failures, and prolonged delays can intensify emotions and entrench positions. In these matters, settlement discussions may become intertwined with control, validation, or narrative dominance rather than financial exposure alone. Progress often requires attention to patience, respect, process and communication, not just numbers.

Successful settlement is the result of careful review and assessment: More reliable settlement assessment in Florida practice often comes from grounding discussions in venue-appropriate reference points and revisiting assumptions as discovery, motion practice, and expert development unfold. Addressing emotional dynamics openly, rather than treating them as distractions, allows parties to engage more constructively with risk. When discussions slow during mediation, it is frequently useful to pause and identify what is driving hesitation. Sometimes the focus has narrowed to an early number. Sometimes concerns about precedent or signaling dominate. Sometimes uncertainty about a difficult outcome has not been fully examined. Allowing space to clarify assumptions and reframe options can restore momentum without pressure.

Resolution in Florida litigation is not about abandoning principles or demonstrating weakness. It is about choosing certainty over volatility in an environment where outcomes remain inherently unpredictable. Alternative dispute resolution, particularly mediation, allows parties to evaluate Florida-specific risks and decide how much uncertainty they are willing to carry forward. Successfully navigating difficult cases requires thoughtful, deliberate strategies that meet parties and counsel where they are, with genuine curiosity about the positions they hold and the interests driving them. From that starting point, creative negotiation techniques can help loosen entrenched positions and move discussions toward a more neutral and productive space. This shift allows for meaningful dialogue, preserves party self-determination, and opens the door to options that more accurately reflect each party’s true interests. Mindset can also greatly influence success in mediation – sometimes it is important to consider “not yet” as the best option moving forward, rather than focusing on “this will never settle” or “not ever.” While one party may believe that “impasse” is the only answer after a few hours in mediation, frequently success in mediation is found after taking a short break or taking a few days or even weeks to continue exploring settlement options. I frequently compare this to a puzzle or a Rubik’s cube- keep shifting the pieces with patience and deliberation until you can find a fit that works.

When settlement value is approached as a structured evaluation rather than an all-or-nothing contest, mediation becomes an opportunity for informed, deliberate choice and durable resolution.

/by

Non-Binding Arbitration in Florida: An Increasingly Popular Option for Resolving Disputes

, ,

When disputes arise, finding a timely and cost-effective resolution is often a top priority for all parties involved. One alternative to traditional litigation is arbitration, and in Florida, non-binding arbitration offers a unique option. While binding arbitration has the power to make decisions that the parties must adhere to, non-binding arbitration in Florida allows for a more flexible approach to dispute resolution. Although it is not used consistently across all jurisdictions in the State, many Courts in Florida are increasingly requiring parties to attend both mediation and non-binding arbitration prior to trial. For the Courts, this provides a way to reduce ever increasing caseloads and clogged trial dockets. For the parties, it provides a quicker and often inexpensive way to resolve the case, short of a trial.

What is Non-Binding Arbitration?

Non-binding arbitration is a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) where an impartial third-party arbitrator hears the case and makes a recommendation. Sometimes there is one arbitrator and other times there is a panel of arbitrators, usually up to three. However, unlike binding arbitration, the decision (or award) rendered by the arbitrator is not final or binding unless the parties elect to make it so. This means that the parties involved in the dispute have the option to accept the arbitrator’s recommendation, negotiate further, or take the matter to court if they are unsatisfied with the outcome. In Florida, non-binding arbitration is often used in civil disputes, including personal injury cases, property damage cases, contract disagreements, and family law matters.

There are specific rules, however, as it relates to non-binding arbitration in Florida that litigators should be aware of. A recent excellent overview of these rules, procedures and other concepts to consider when handling a non-binding arbitration in Florida is provided by Tiffany Hamilton, Esq. in “Non-Binding Arbitration: Tools for Your ADR Toolbox”, Volume 11 of the Stetson Journal of Advocacy and the Law, 11 Stetson J. Advoc. & L. 207 (2024)[i]. In this article, Ms. Hamilton reviews the authority providing for the use of nonbinding arbitration in Florida and offers strategic points to consider when choosing an arbitrator, drafting the argument and more. In addition, practical materials such as Continuing Legal Education seminars from the Florida Bar can provide an overview of the nonbinding arbitration process for those that have not dealt with it before.[ii]

Recent changes to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure have also impacted nonbinding arbitration. For example, a recent amendment to the Florida Rules in Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.820(h) provides that the party must reject the arbitrator’s decision within 20 days and “…no action or inaction by any party, other than the filing of the notice, will be deemed a rejection of the arbitration decision.”[iii]  This recent rule change is probably the result of recent cases providing conflicting guidance on what notice is sufficient when rejecting the award. A recent case highlights the dangers of not complying with the rule: In People’s Trust Insurance Company v. Hernandez, 4D2024-3274 (Fla. 4th DCA March 26, 2025), the Fourth District held that a party seeking to reject a non-binding arbitration award and proceed to trial must strictly comply with Rule 1.820(h)’s requirement of filing “a notice of rejection of the arbitration award and request for trial in the same document.”[iv] In addition, while Florida Statutes and the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure should be reviewed when handling a non-binding arbitration, many Florida Circuits now have specific local requirements and Orders that are unique to their area. Attorneys handling non-binding arbitrations should consult local rules when preparing for and handling a nonbinding arbitration.

Brief Overview of the Process of Non-Binding Arbitration in Florida

The process of non-binding arbitration in Florida typically follows several key steps:

  1. Agreement to Arbitrate: Parties can agree to submit their dispute to non-binding arbitration or the court may mandate non-binding arbitration as a pre-trial procedure for certain types of cases, especially in civil litigation.
  2. Selection of Arbitrator: The parties select an arbitrator, usually someone with experience in the area of dispute. In Florida, arbitrators may be retired judges, lawyers, or professionals with expertise in the subject matter of the dispute. If the parties cannot agree on an arbitrator, the court can assist in appointing one.
  3. Pre-Arbitration Procedures: Before the arbitration hearing, the parties typically exchange relevant documents and evidence. The arbitrator may also set deadlines for submissions or request additional information to help assess the dispute.
  4. Arbitration Hearing: The hearing is relatively informal compared to a court trial. The parties present their cases, submit evidence, and may question witnesses. The arbitrator then considers the information presented and issues an award.
  5. The Award: After reviewing all the evidence and hearing from both sides, the arbitrator issues an award, which is a recommendation on how the dispute should be resolved. This decision is non-binding, meaning that neither party is required to accept the arbitrator’s conclusion. If the parties agree with the award, they may enter into a settlement. If one or both parties disagree, they can (and must) proceed to court and file the appropriate notices and motions to continue the case towards a final hearing or trial.

Advantages of Non-Binding Arbitration in Florida

Non-binding arbitration in Florida offers several benefits:

  1. Cost-Effectiveness: Legal battles can be expensive, especially in complex cases. Non-binding arbitration typically costs less than litigation due to the shorter time frame and more streamlined process.
  2. Faster Resolution: Traditional court cases can take months or even years to resolve. Non-binding arbitration, on the other hand, is often faster, helping to alleviate the burden of long delays.
  3. Flexibility: The parties have the option to reject the arbitrator’s award and proceed to court if they feel the decision is unsatisfactory. This flexibility makes non-binding arbitration an appealing option for those who want a resolution without fully committing to a legally enforceable decision.
  4. Confidentiality: Non-binding arbitration hearings are generally private, which can provide confidentiality for the parties involved. This is particularly important in business or personal matters where sensitive information may be discussed.
  5. Preserving Relationships: Because the process is less adversarial than going to trial, non-binding arbitration can help preserve relationships between the parties. This is especially valuable in family disputes or commercial matters where future collaboration may be necessary.

Conclusion

Non-binding arbitration provides a valuable alternative to litigation for resolving disputes in Florida and has been quickly evolving for the past few years into a robust option to trial. It offers a faster, less costly, and more flexible path to resolution, while still preserving the option to pursue traditional legal action if neded. For parties seeking a way to settle disagreements without the complexity and expense of a courtroom trial, non-binding arbitration can be a viable solution.

[i] https://www2.stetson.edu/advocacy-journal/non-binding-arbitration-tools-for-your-adr-toolbox/

[ii] The Florida Bar CLE: 8576 Nonbinding Arbitration in Florida: A Colloquy between Bench and Bar – https://member.floridabar.org/CPBase__item?id=a10WQ000000ZtrFYAS; 8190 Nonbinding Arbitration Hearings: Learn How or Get Left Behind! – https://member.floridabar.org/CPBase__item?id=a10Dm000000kWSIIA2

[iii] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.820(h)

[iv] People’s Trust Insurance Company v. Hernandez, 4D2024-3274 (Fla. 4th DCA March 26, 2025)(providing that Rule 1.820(h) will be strictly enforced, and parties must comply with its requirements if they decide to reject a nonbinding arbitration award).

/by