proposal for settlement of the property damage claims, but was served before Beekie executed releases for those claims. The final judgment awarded to Beekie was twenty-five percent greater than any of Beekie’s proposals for settlement. In regard to the final proposal for settlement, the request for fees was denied because it included the ambiguous condition that proof was required demonstrating an ability to pay the amount demanded. We agree with the trial court that the last proposal cannot be a basis for an award of attorney’s fees because it was both ambiguous and failed to make it clear that it was solely for personal injuries when the settlement of the property damage claim had not yet been fully consummated. See, e.g., Nichols v. State Farm Mut., 851 So.2d 742 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (<HOLDING>), rev. granted, 03-01653 (Fla. Sept. 11, 2003).
holding patent policy incorporated by reference into patent agreement holding that an ambiguity in the proposal for settlement affected the offerees decisionmaking therefore rendering the proposal unenforceable recognizing the lack of logic in requiring ambiguity which may be fortuitous to prove the true terms of an agreement recognizing a latent ambiguity in a lease agreement recognizing that terms and conditions of a proposal for settlement should be devoid of ambiguity patent or latent