Background
After Hurricane Irma, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation paid the Oppenheimers for a homeowners-insurance loss, including supplemental payments following appraisal. The Oppenheimers later sued over alleged settlement agreements arising from proposals for settlement in their first coverage action. The trial court found no meeting of the minds, and the Third District previously affirmed that ruling.
In a second action, the Oppenheimers pursued claims based on the alleged settlements. After they filed a second amended complaint without leave of court, Citizens served a section 57.105 sanctions motion and, after the 21-day safe-harbor period elapsed, filed it. Citizens later served a second sanctions motion on substantially the same grounds. The Oppenheimers voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice on day 16 of the second safe-harbor period.
The Court’s Holding
The Third District affirmed the denial of Citizens’s August 2024 motion for section 57.105 sanctions. It held, as an issue of first impression, that Citizens’s later January 2025 sanctions motion—served on the same grounds as the earlier filed motion—gave the Oppenheimers a new 21-day safe-harbor opportunity.
Because the Oppenheimers dismissed their action within that later safe-harbor period, they avoided sanctions. The court reasoned that Citizens effectively afforded a final opportunity to withdraw the challenged litigation when it served the successive motion, even though Citizens said it did so to preserve additional fees through the entitlement hearing.
Key Takeaways
- A successive section 57.105 motion based on the same grounds can create a new safe-harbor period.
- A timely voluntary dismissal during that later period can preclude sanctions on the earlier motion.
- Section 57.105 sanctions are not automatic merely because a claim ultimately fails.
Why It Matters
Litigants seeking section 57.105 sanctions should recognize that serving a later sanctions motion on the same grounds may renew the opposing party’s chance to withdraw the challenged claims. The decision emphasizes the statute’s remedial safe-harbor function and limits the ability to pursue sanctions after a timely withdrawal in response to a successive notice.