W. Riley Allen, Petitioner v. Jairo Rafael Nunez, Respondents. — Pariente, J., Concurring

Summary

Pariente, J. concurring, agrees that the settlement proposal at issue was unambiguous and therefore enforceable, and urges courts to focus on the purpose of Rule 1.442 to reduce litigation rather than “nitpick” proposals. The opinion stresses that a proposal need only be clear enough for the offeree to decide without clarification. The Court’s decision is noted as affirmed, and Justice POLSTON’s dissent is mentioned, arguing the Court lacks jurisdiction to review the case.