 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Petersen v. Genesis Learning Centers12/13/2005
es reached a settlement agreement for $575,000, and that TII was attempting to breach that agreement, stating, "The Court may simply read the letters in this case to conclude that a bargain was struck." TII filed a response in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion to enforce the settlement in the amount of $575,000, arguing that there was no meeting of the minds regarding a fixed settlement amount. In the alternative, TII argued that the trial court should find that the Plaintiffs accepted TII's offer to settle in an amount equal to the insurance limits remaining at that time. In support of its response, TII attached an affidavit by Crider, in which she explained the events that transpired between the parties. The affidavit quotes the pertinent language in the parties' written correspondence, and also notes the verbal communications between her and counsel for Plaintiffs. Crider stated that she had advised Plaintiffs' counsel in 2001 that the insurance policy had eroding limits. She noted that the parties had mediated the matter in an attempt to settle, at which time there had been extensive discussions about the fact that, the longer they litigated the case, the further the policy limits would erode. At that time, she said, Plaintiffs' counsel refused the offer of policy limits. Crider emphasized that she was "careful to state in my [May 10] letter that was offering `remaining limits.' . . . I added the word `approximately' before the $575,000 remaining." She said that her goal was to give Plaintiffs' counsel an opportunity to accept the settlement offer before the mock trial occurred, so that she could cancel the mock trial and preserve the remaining policy limits. Crider admitted that, at the time she sent the letter to Plaintiffs' counsel, she underestimated the unbilled fees and expenses by about $50,000. After receiving the May 10 offer, Crider said, Plaintiffs' counsel called her asking "if could keep the offer of `remaining limits' open for 48 hours." She responded that she could do so, but told them that she would have to continue to prepare for trial, which would continue to erode the limits. Crider said that she was "puzzled" when Plaintiffs' counsel "accepted" the offer of $575,000, and responded with the letter dated May 12, 2004 stating that TII would pay "whatever the remaining limits are at the time we finalize the agreement," which by that time were between $450,000 and $475,000.
On May 14, 2004, the trial court held a hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion to enforce settlement in the amount of $575,000. At the hearing, the parties agreed that no further filings, evidence, or hearing was being requested, and that the trial court would determine the issue based upon Plaintiffs' motion, TII's response, and any attachments thereto.
On May 17, 2004, the trial court entered an order finding in favor of Plaintiffs and enforcing the settlement agreement in the amount of $575,000. The trial court determined that, through the parties' correspondence, they entered into a contract to settle, and that the letters did not establish any express lack of authority to settle on the part of Crider. Therefore, the trial court ordered specific performance of the settlement agreement in the amount of $575,000. From that order, TII now appeals.
On appeal, TII argues that the trial court erred in enforcing the settlement agreement for $575,000, because Crider did not have authority to settle for more than the remaining limits on the policy, and because the correspondence between the parties shows that there was no meeting of the minds with respect to the terms of the alleged agreement. Whether the parties entered into an enforceable contract is a question of law, subject to de novo review on t
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|