Question 1

I. Summary of Law (Rule 1.370 Fla.R.Civ.P.)

Accepted Answer

A. Scope of Requests

May be served by a party on any other party
May request answering party to admit the truth of any matters within scope of Rule 1.280(b) (any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the litigation or that is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence)
May relate to statements or opinions of fact
May relate to the application of law to fact
May request admission regarding genuineness of any documents described in request; copies of such documents must be served with the request unless they have previously been produced

B. When Requests May Be Served

May be served upon plaintiff after commencement of the action
May be served upon any other party with or after service of process and initial pleading
Leave of court is not necessary

C. Number of Requests Permitted

Shall not exceed 30 requests, including all subparts, except with leave of court or stipulation by parties
Each matter for which admission is requested must be set forth separately.

D. Responses

If answering party does not admit the matter, answer must specifically deny the matter or set forth in detail the reasons why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny the matter.
Answer or objection must be served on requesting party within 30 days after service of the request, or other time as court may allow. If objection is made, reasons shall be stated.
Defendant is not required to serve answers or objections until 45 days after service of process and initial pleading on defendant.
Request is deemed admitted if response is not served timely.
When good faith requires that answer be qualified or that matter be partially admitted, answering party shall specify what is admitted, and qualify or deny the remainder.
Answering party may not give lack of information or lack of knowledge as reason for failure to admit or deny unless party states that it has made reasonable inquiry and that information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable party to admit or deny.
Party who considers matter to be genuine issue for trial may not object to request on that ground alone; party may deny the matter or set forth reasons why it cannot admit or deny the matter, but it may be subject to fees and costs under Rule 1.380(c).
Requesting party may move to determine sufficiency of answers or objections. If court determines that answer or objection is not justified or does not comply with rules, it may order that matter is admitted or that amended answer be served.  In the alternative, court may determine disposition of request at pretrial conference or another time before trial.  Fees and costs under Rule 1.380(a)(4)(motion to compel discovery) may be awarded when the court deems it appropriate.
Any matter admitted is conclusively established unless court permits withdrawal or amendment of admission, and admission is for purpose of present action only and is not admission for any other purpose not may it be used against party in any other proceeding. Court may permit withdrawal or amendment of admission if presentation of merits will be served by it and there is no prejudice to party who obtained admission.

E .Sanctions for Failure to Admit

If answering party fails to admit genuineness of document or truth of matter when requested, and if party making request later proves genuineness of document or truth of matter, requesting party may petition court for fees and costs incurred in proving the matter.
Court may refuse to impose fees and costs if it finds:

Request was objectionable under Rule 1.370(a);
Admission sought was of no substantial importance; or
There was other good reason for failure to admit.

Question 2

II. Relevant Cases

Accepted Answer

A. Signature/Oath
Response to request for admissions may be signed by party’s attorney and is not required to be sworn to or signed by party. Fla. Fish Distributors, Inc. v. Norwegian Caribbean Lines, Inc., 328 So.2d 240 (1st DCA 1976).
B. Requirement to Respond
Even when request for admission contains inaccurate information, answering party must still admit any portions of request that should in good faith be admitted, and may not deny entire request simply due to inaccuracy in request. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Gerringer, 563 So.2d 814 (3rd DCA 1990).
C. Pleadings
Response to request for admissions is not a “pleading”, and it would be error for court to strike response as sanction for failure to respond to subsequent discovery orders. Bradford Motor Cars, Inc. v. Frem, 511 So.2d 1120 (4th DCA 1987).
D. Use of Admissions for Impeachment
Answer that is technically correct, even if it is improper denial under the rule, may not be used as prior inconsistent statement for impeachment. Request for admissions are not a discovery tool – they are intended to obtain concessions and to narrow the issues for trial.  Responses may not, therefore, be used for impeachment. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Gerringer, 563 So.2d 814 (3rd DCA 1990).
E. Effect of Failure to Timely Respond

Generally, requests that are not answered timely are deemed admitted and conclusively established.However, court has discretion to allow party to serve untimely response to request for admissions, particularly if requesting party is not prejudiced by permitting late response. Adams v. Freel, 409 So.2d 1176 (5th DCA 1982).
Court may impose costs on answering party that are attributable to late response (i.e. costs for plaintiff to issue new trial subpoenas after plaintiff released witnesses from subpoenas due to failure of defendant to timely answer requests for admissions), Durrance v. Thompson, 486 So.2d 711 (5th DCA 1986).
Abuse of discretion to grant summary judgment on basis of party’s technical admissions resulting from untimely responses to request for admissions, when evidence and other pleadings in case contradict the technical admission, and there is no prejudice to requesting party from withdrawal of admissions. Untimely response to request for admissions did not warrant striking pleadings and granting summary judgment against answering party, where there was no court order compelling discovery. Thomas v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 875 So.2d 758 (4th DCA 2004); In re Forfeiture of 1982 Ford Mustang, Vehicle ID No. ABP16F6CF190433, 725 So.2d 382 (2nd DCA 1998); In re Forfeiture of: $2,470.00, 40 FLW D1090 (2nd DCA 2015).
Trial court did not abuse discretion in refusing to allow service of responses to requests for admissions several months late and after court entered order ruling that requests were deemed  admitted. Granville v. Capital Bank, 456 So.2d 960 (3rd DCA 1984).
Court did not abuse discretion in refusing to accept defendant’s late answer to request for admission and deeming matters admitted. Hanrahan v. Barry, 363 So.2d 54 (3rd DCA 1978).
Insured who failed to timely respond to request for admissions was not entitled to relief from conclusively established admissions, where no motion for relief from admissions had been made. Singer v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 512 So.2d 1125 (4th DCA 1987).
Unless timely answer or objection is filed, matter requested in request for admissions is conclusively admitted and established and remainsso unless and until the court on motion permits withdrawal or amendment or otherwise grants relief from effect of failure to answer. Morgan v. Thomson, 427 So.2d 1134 (5th DCA 1983); West v. West, 436 So.2d 1010 (5th DCA 1983).
Plaintiff may not liquidate damages by relying only on request for admission that is not answered. Bradford Motor Cars, Inc. v. Frem, 511 So.2d 1120 (4th DCA 1987).
Defendant, by failing to answer certain requests for admissions, did not admit the amount of damage suffered by insured as result of bicycle-automobile accident. Hutchinson v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 447 So.2d 234 (1st DCA 1983).
Requests for admissions made by defendant insurer  in action where plaintiff sought to obtain personal injury protection benefits from insurer were to be treated as conclusive admissions where plaintiff did not respond to requests and did not attempt to move court to withdraw or amend admissions on ground of excusable neglect or any other ground; affidavit later filed that contradicted technical admissions was legally ineffective to overcome admissions. Creel v. GEICO, 313 So.2d 772 (3rd DCA 1975), quashed on other grounds, 336 So.2d 1170 (Fla. 1976).
Trial court in legal malpractice action did not err in directing a verdict in favor of plaintiff based on attorney&#8217;s failure to answer request for admissions, since case did not involve inadvertent typographical error or brief delay in the response, and evidence clearly supported conclusion that attorney&#8217;s failure to answer was not inadvertent. Kyle v. McFadden, 443 So.2d 497 (1st DCA 1984).

F. Effect of Admission

Response to request for admission is binding on party giving the response, but not on party making the request. Therefore, court should not give jury instruction based on answer to request. Black v. Palm Beach County, 342 So.2d 1034 (4th DCA 1977).
Owners&#8217;/developers&#8217; admissions that pool had been accepted by them as complete and that they had opened the pool for full use by resort guests before diver&#8217;s accident were binding on owners/developers, but not upon contractor who requested the admissions or upon diver, who was not a party to this discovery. Kendrick v. Middlesex Development Corp., 586 So.2d 436 (1st DCA 1991).
Once a request for admission is admitted or is deemed admitted by a failure to timely respond,  the matter is conclusively established. Admission does not need to be admitted in evidence, as it would not go to issue of disputed fact. Holland  v. CSX Transp., Inc., 583 So.2d 777 (2nd DCA 1991); Lutsch v. Smith, 397 So.2d 337 (1st DCA 1981).
Rule governing effect of admissions cannot be  ignored and in absence of motion it is error to disregard admission resulting from failure to timely respond to request for admissions. West v. West, 436 So.2d 1010 (5th DCA 1983).
Use of admissions obtained through a technicality  should not form basis to preclude adjudication of legitimate claim. Ramos v. Growing Together, Inc., 672 So.2d 103 (4th DCA 1996).
While it is normally within the trial court&#8217;s discretion to use a technically deemed admission to support a summary judgment, it is error if the record contains evidence contrary to the admission. In re Forfeiture of 1982 Ford Mustang, Vehicle ID No. ABP16F6CF190433, 725 So.2d 382 (2nd DCA 1998).

G. Permissible Scope of Requests

Plaintiff’s request for admission asking defendant to admit negligence was not improper or objectionable, and required response. Salazar v. Valle, 360 So.2d 132 (3rd DCA 1978).
Where defendant served plaintiff with request for admission that she sought damages in excess of  $50,000, plaintiff could not object on ground that request was not material evidentiary issue or that she had not yet learned whether she could assert such damages; amount of damages was uniquely within plaintiff’s knowledge. Sunrise Mills (MLP) Ltd. Partnership v. Adams, 688 So.2d 464 (4th DCA 1997).
 Request for admission that seeks legal conclusion  rather than admission of fact is objectionable and does not require response. Old Equity Life Ins. Co. v. Suggs, 263 So.2d 280 (2nd DCA 1972). (Request that insurer admit that it was “indebted to plaintiff” in full amount sued for “according to the terms of the insurance policy” called for legal conclusion and did not require response).
Request for admission that seeks admission of disputed fact at heart of case or that seeks admission as to conclusion of law is objectionable. City of Miami v. Bell, 253 So.2d 742 (3rd DCA 1971), superseded by rule according to Salazar v. Valle, 360 S0.2d 132 (3rd DCA 1978); Sentz v. Tracy, 266 So.3d 1279 (5th DCA 2019) (admission that goes to ultimate disputed issue at heart of case, such as whether defendant was negligent, cannot serve as basis for award of fees).
Objections that requests for admissions called for numerous admissions of fact mixed with  conclusions of law and required enormous amount of research, and that plaintiffs sought to cast almost entire burden of proof in case on defendant, were not sufficiently specific, and  required response. Carson v. City of Ft. Lauderdale, 173 So.2d 743 (2nd DCA 1965).
Where plaintiffs&#8217; request for admissions from defendant railroad contained substance of findings and conclusions contained in report of National Transportation Safety Board, but did not identify them as such, trial court properly denied railroad&#8217;s motion to strike admissions on basis that federal statute prohibited use in civil trials of information given to agencies. Louisville and Nashville R. Co. v. Hickman, 445 So.2d 1023 (1st DCA 1983).
Failure of decedent&#8217;s estate to respond to  request for admission that land owner did not have duty to motorists passing through intersection near land could not be basis for summary judgment in favor of land owner in wrongful death action, as duty of care owed was purely legal conclusion. Davis v. Dollar Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc., 909 So.2d 297 (5th DCA 2004), quashed on other grounds, Williams v. Davis, 974 So.2d 1052 (Fla. 2007).

H. Requests Pertaining to Experts
Party may not initially discover information about opposing party’s experts by means of requests for admissions, but may do so with leave of court after such information has been sought through interrogatories. Richmond v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 571 So.2d 491 (2nd DCA 1990); Continental Ins. Co. v. Cole, 467 So.2d 309 (4th DCA 1985).
I. Withdrawal of/Relief from Admission

Generally, requests that are not answered timely are deemed admitted and conclusively established. However, court has discretion to allow party to serve untimely response to request for admissions, particularly if requesting party is not prejudiced by permitting late response. Adams v. Freel, 409 So.2d 1176 (5th DCA 1982).
Court properly permitted withdrawal of technical admissions which occurred when responses were  served four days late; opponent failed to show prejudice, and withdrawal of admissions encouraged presentation of case on evidentiary merits. Pelkey v. Commander Motel Corp., 510 So.2d 965 (4th DCA 1987).
Insured under homeowner&#8217;s policy would not be  deemed to have admitted that damage caused by sewage back up had been damage for “water which backs up through sewers or drains” which was excluded under policy, even though counsel for insurer had served request for admission of point which was not responded to within required time. Sterling v. City of West Palm Beach, 595 So.2d 284 (4th DCA 1992).
Party may not withdraw admission or be granted  relief from admission without motion to amend. In re Forfeiture of 1982 Ford Mustang, Vehicle ID No. ABP16F6CF190433, 725 So.2d 382 (2nd DCA 1998); West v. West, 436 So.2d 1010 (5th DCA 1983). However, 4th DCA does not require motion. Absence of a motion did not preclude trial court from granting relief from admissions resulting from failure to timely respond to request for admissions. Pelkey v. Commander Motel Corp., 510 So.2d 965 (4th DCA 1987).
Trial court&#8217;s denial of defendants&#8217; motion for relief from admissions constituted abuse of discretion where presentation of case on its merits based on defendants&#8217; belated response to request for admissions would not prejudice plaintiff. DeAtley v. McKinley, 497 So.2d 962 (1st DCA 1986).
Trial court did not abuse its discretion in  determining that excusable neglect existed for failure to timely respond to request for  admissions because of breakdown in the attorney&#8217;s tickler system, thus warranting relief from  summary judgment; Wood v. Fortune Ins. Co., 453 So.2d 451 (4th DCA 1984).
Trial court did not abuse its discretion in  denying corporation&#8217;s motion to amend requests  for admissions that were “deemed admitted” for corporation&#8217;s failure to timely answer the request, in corporation&#8217;s action challenging interim service fee (ISF) imposed on newly improved property by city; motion to amend admissions was not made until the date of the hearing on city&#8217;s motion for summary judgment, which was months after corporation&#8217;s responses were due. Asset Management Consultants of Virginia, Inc. v. City of Tamarac, 913 So.2d 1179 (4th DCA 2005).
Allowing automobile driver to amend responses to  passenger&#8217;s request for admissions was warranted  in passenger&#8217;s personal injury action arising from automobile accident; driver&#8217;s counsel established that wrong responses were filed due to clerical error. Istache v. Pierre, 876 So.2d 1217 (4th DCA 2004).
Liberal standard of civil procedural rule  allowing court to relieve party from effect of technical admission when not prejudicial to party who obtained admission favors amendment in most cases in order to allow disposition on the merits. Failure to grant defendant relief from admissions and denial of request to amend responses was abuse of discretion where, although defendant&#8217;s responses were filed 30 days after amended complaint was filed, defendant timely filed motion for relief from admissions,  plaintiff did not establish that it would be prejudiced by allowing defendant to amend and proceed to merits, and defendant&#8217;s answers to interrogatories created disputed issues of fact. Ramos v. Growing Together, Inc., 672 So.2d 103 (4th DCA 1996).
In bank&#8217;s conversion action based on presentation  of forged check, trial court erred in denying  defendant&#8217;s motion to amend his answer to request for admissions to deny rather than admit making  forgery where it was clear that admission was result of clerical mistake. Davison v. First Federal Sav. And Loan Ass’n of Orlando, 413 So.2d 1258 (5th DCA 1982).
In view of amendment of rule authorizing courts to permit withdrawal or amendment of answer to request for admissions when that action will serve presentation of merits and when party who obtained admissions fails to satisfy court that withdrawal or amendment will prejudice him in maintaining action or defense on merits, parties who responded to request for admissions 77 days late, but inadvertently so, and who made response before pleadings were closed, before entry of pretrial order and before any trial date had been set, should have been allowed to file sworn answers to requests, absent any showing of prejudice to opponents. Melody Tours, Inc. v. Granville Market Letter, Inc., 413 So.2d 450 (5th DCA 1982).

J. Attorneys Fees and Costs

Where party fails to respond to request for admissions, matters submitted are conclusively established for purposes of action. Imposition of attorney fees denied defendants their due process right to be heard, where fees were not pled prior to trial or included in request for admissions. Greiner Engineering Sciences, Inc. v. Commercial Center Development Corp., 508 So.2d 525 (5th DCA 1987).
Attorney fee award of $675,612 against builder for failure to admit that prior to construction of homes, it failed to have construction plans approved by the city, exceeded parameters of rule of civil procedure allowing for reasonable expenses incurred by other party in making that  proof. Tripp Const., Inc. v. Verde, 789 So.2d 1171 (3rd DCA 2001).
The trial court must make findings if it decides to deny a request for reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the failure to admit in response to requests for admission. Expenses incurred by a successful litigant may not be assessed against the opposing party for denying a request to admit a hotly-contested, central issue to the case. Arena Parking, Inc. v. Lon Worth Crow Ins. Agency, 768 So.2d 1107 (3rd DCA 2000).
Following former attorney&#8217;s failure to admit to truth of matters in former clients&#8217; requests for admissions, clients were not entitled to award of attorney fees for expenses incurred in proving the matters. Chadwick v. Corbin, 476 So.2d 1366 (1st DCA 1985).
No recovery could be had for attorney fees based on need to prove certain denied requests for admissions where request was initially raised in post trial memorandum filed in lieu of closing argument and appellant&#8217;s request for oral argument on motion for rehearing was denied. Orange County v. Seally, 412 So.2d 25 (5th DCA 1982), disapproved on other grounds by Aetna v. Norman, 468 So.2d 226 (Fla. 1985).
Fact that jury found against defendants, who denied plaintiffs&#8217; pretrial request to admit negligence on part of defendant and to admit no negligence on part of plaintiff did not entitle plaintiffs to attorney fees and costs as trial court found that defendant had reasonable ground to believe that he might prevail on the issues of negligence and there was no showing of abuse of discretion in such regard. Stokes v. Clark, 390 So.2d 489 (1st DCA 1980).
Attorneys&#8217; fees for proving up admissions after losing defendant refused requests therefor were  properly assessed against that defendant. St. Petersburg Sheraton Corp. v. Stuart, 242 So.2d 185 (2nd DCA 1970).

Requests for Admission in Florida

Quick Links

Contact Us

Practice Areas

Disclaimer

This page is protected.

Other Outlines

Get a FREE
Case Evaluation

Requests for Admission in Florida

Quick Links

This page is protected.

Other Outlines

Get a FREE Case Evaluation

Get a FREE
Case Evaluation