IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY

DARLEENE JOHNSON

          Appellant,

v.                                          Appeal No. 00-1553 CI – 88B

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

          Appellee.

_________________________/

Opinion filed __________________.

Appeal from an amended final judgment

entered by the Pinellas County Court

County Judge Walter Fullerton

Brian Eisenstadt, Esq.
Attorney for appellant

Robert Oxendine, Esq.
Attorney for appellee

ORDER AND OPINION

     THIS MATTER is before the Court on Darleene Johnson’s appeal from an amended final judgment entered by the Pinellas County Court. After reviewing the briefs and record, this Court affirms the amended judgment and sentence.

     This matter began as a claim for PIP benefits. The appellant rejected State Farm’s offer of judgment and elected to take the issue to a jury trial. The jury returned a verdict in favor of State Farm. Pursuant to the offer of judgment statute, State Farm sought attorney’s fees and costs, and the trial court granted its request. In this appeal the appellant claims that the trial court should not have awarded attorney’s fees and costs against her because of defects in the offer.

      The appellant claims that the offer does not identify the claim or claims to be settled, and that the offer does not specifically mention attorney’s fees. The offer states: The Defendant … makes an Offer of Judgment to Plaintiff, DARLENE JOHNSON, for the total amount of TWENTY-FIVE DOLLARS and NO/100 ($25.00), exclusive of fees and cost. This is the total Offer being made and is all inclusive of any other Offer(s) now pending. (attached Exhibit #1).

     This Court finds that the offer, although it could have been better, is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.442. The proposal sufficiently identifies the claim because there was only one claim at issue in the appellant’s one-count complaint. Obviously, the offer to settle was a proposal to settle that one issue. As for the appellant’s claim that the proposal was invalid because it did not identify the fees as attorney’s fees, that claim is without merit. Technical oversights do not render the proposal invalid. See Spruce Creek Development Co. of Ocala, Inc. v. Drew, 746 So.2d 1109 (Fla. 5^th DCA 1999).

       Finally, the appellant claims that the proposal was not made in good faith. The trial court specifically found that the proposal was made in good faith, and there is no transcript to aid the appellant in demonstrating that it was not. Moreover, as the appellee points out, the nominal offer of judgment was made after State Farm had conducted extensive discovery. This has been held sufficient. See  Allstate v. Silow, 714 So.2d 647 (Fla. 4^th DCA 1998).  Accordingly,

       IT IS ORDERED that the amended judgment and sentence are affirmed.

       DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at St.Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida this _____ day of March, 2001.

cc:    Robert Oxendine, Esq.

         Brian Eisenstadt, Esq.

         Judge Fullerton