decision to accept or reject. See Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Pollinger 42 So.3d 890, 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). As the Supreme Court has noted State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 932 So.2d 1067, 1079 (Fla. 2006): The rule intends for a proposal for judgment to be as specific as possible, leaving n

hich might possibly lead to evidence supporting some subsequent cause of action is quashed. COBB and PETERSON, IL, concur. Fla.App. 5 Dist.,2001. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Parrish O 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. Page 2 http://web2.westlaw.corn/print/printstream.aspx?sv

r procedure is for the trial court to examine the disputed documents in-camera and remove those documents which fall into the privileged category." State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Kendrick, 780 So. 2d 231, 233 (Ha. 3d DCA 2001) (error for trial court to order production of documents allegedly protected by a

hich might possibly lead to evidence supporting some subsequent cause of action is quashed. COBB and PETERSON, IL, concur. Fla.App. 5 Dist.,2001. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Parrish O 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. http://web2.westlaw.corn/print/printstream.aspx?sv=Split&p

the trial court incorrectly enforced the Proposal for Settlement because the proposal was ambiguous under the Florida Supreme Court's decision in State Farm Mut. Auto., Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 932 So.2d 1067 (Fla.2006). We are mindful of the requirements which must be satisfied for a proposal for settlement t