Gary and Christie Domoracki v. QBE Specialty Insurance Company

M.D. Florida

Gary and Christie Domoracki v. QBE Specialty Insurance Company

District Court, M.D. Florida·Decided October 21, 2025·No. 2:25-cv-00170·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

GARY and CHRISTIE DOMORACKI, Plaintiffs,

v. 2:25-cv-170-SPC-NPM

QBE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

ORDER In this Hurricane Ian case, the defendant filed notices of serving offers of judgment pursuant to Florida Statute § 768.79, and the plaintiffs move to strike them. But “motions to strike are only appropriately addressed toward matters contained in the pleadings.” Bowman v. Harvey, No. 3:22-cv-545-MMH-MCR, 2024 WL 1299280, *1 n.3 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 27, 2024) (quoting Polite v. Dougherty Cnty. Sch. Sys., 314 F. App’x 180, 184 n.7 (11th Cir. 2008)); see also In re Fancher, 802 F. App’x 538, 544 (11th Cir. 2020) (“motions to strike are more properly filed in reference to pleadings”). Plus, it would be premature to take up any motion concerning a potential § 768.79 sanction. See Ange’s Auto Repair & Serv., Inc v. Century Sur. Co., No. 2:21-CV-655-SPC-NPM, 2024 WL 922640, *3–4 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 13, 2024), R&R adopted, 2024 WL 916525 (Mar. 1, 2024) (§ 768.79 is not a fee-shifting statute; rather, a party may be sanctioned under § 768.79 for unreasonably rejecting a settlement offer, and to arrive at an appropriate sanction, an opponent’s fees, costs, and non-taxable expenses are among the various factors to be considered). Plaintiffs’ motion (Doc. 36) is DENIED. ORDERED on October 21, 2025

NICHOLAS P. ZE United States Magistrate Judge

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

GARY and CHRISTIE DOMORACKI, Plaintiffs,

v. 2:25-cv-170-SPC-NPM

QBE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

ORDER In this Hurricane Ian case, the defendant filed notices of serving offers of judgment pursuant to Florida Statute § 768.79, and the plaintiffs move to strike them. But “motions to strike are only appropriately addressed toward matters contained in the pleadings.” Bowman v. Harvey, No. 3:22-cv-545-MMH-MCR, 2024 WL 1299280, *1 n.3 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 27, 2024) (quoting Polite v. Dougherty Cnty. Sch. Sys., 314 F. App’x 180, 184 n.7 (11th Cir. 2008)); see also In re Fancher, 802 F. App’x 538, 544 (11th Cir. 2020) (“motions to strike are more properly filed in reference to pleadings”). Plus, it would be premature to take up any motion concerning a potential § 768.79 sanction. See Ange’s Auto Repair & Serv., Inc v. Century Sur. Co., No. 2:21-CV-655-SPC-NPM, 2024 WL 922640, *3–4 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 13, 2024), R&R adopted, 2024 WL 916525 (Mar. 1, 2024) (§ 768.79 is not a fee-shifting statute; rather, a party may be sanctioned under § 768.79 for unreasonably rejecting a settlement offer, and to arrive at an appropriate sanction, an opponent’s fees, costs, and non-taxable expenses are among the various factors to be considered). Plaintiffs’ motion (Doc. 36) is DENIED. ORDERED on October 21, 2025

NICHOLAS P. ZE United States Magistrate Judge

-2-

Gary and Christie Domoracki v. QBE Specialty Insurance Company, (M.D. Fla. 2025).

Pincite

Gary and Christie Domoracki v. QBE Specialty Insurance Company (Gary and Christie Domoracki v. QBE Specialty Insurance Company) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related