 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Petersen v. Genesis Learning Centers12/13/2005
tlement agreement of $20,000 over and above the $15,300 he had already been paid.
The trial court denied the Plaintiff's motion to enforce the agreement for $20,000 in addition to the $15,300. It concluded, among other things, that "there was no meeting of the minds as to what was being offered and therefore it could not be enforced under general contract principles." Id. at *6. The plaintiff appealed. On appeal, the appellate court agreed with the decision of the trial court:
According to [plaintiff's counsel's] testimony, he believed Plaintiff was offered $20,000.00 over and above the $15,300.00 already paid. On the other hand, [defendant's counsel] testified that at no time did he ever have any settlement authority in excess of $20,000.00 total in which to settle the whole case. . . . We find no reversible error in the Trial Court's conclusion that there was no meeting of the minds with regard to what was offered in the settlement negotiations, and affirm the Trial Court's conclusion on this issue.
Id. at *7. In reaching this conclusion, the appellate court gave due deference to the trial court's assessment of the witnesses and its determination of their credibility. The trial court had determined that counsel for the plaintiff actually believed that he was offered $20,000 over and above the $15,300 amount already paid. Likewise, counsel for the defendant believed that the offer was for a total of $20,000, because he had no authority to settle the entire case for anything in excess of that amount. Defense counsel's sincere belief that he had offered a total of $20,000 was supported by the undisputed fact that he was unaware of that the plaintiff had already been paid $15,300. Under those circumstances, the appellate court concluded that each party had misunderstood the position of the other, and that, therefore, "there was no meeting of the minds with regard to what was offered in the settlement negotiations." Id.
In this case, Plaintiffs contend that TII either made a unilateral mistake in offering a settlement amount that exceeded the authorized amount, or that TII intentionally engaged in a "bait and switch" by reneging on their initial offer of $575,000. Plaintiffs argue in their brief that " ettlement discussions with Mrs. Crider occurred over the phone. Money was the issue." When they received Crider's offer, they claim, "Plaintiffs finally had a figure to discuss." Plaintiffs argue that the plain language of the May 10 letter reflected a liquidated settlement offer of $575,000, and that the agreement was formed when Plaintiffs accepted that offer. They assert that Crider had the authority to bind TII, and that TII must honor the agreement formed between Crider and Plaintiffs.
We disagree with the Plaintiffs' characterization of the language in the parties' correspondence. The May 10 offer letter states at the outset that Crider was "authorized to offer you the remaining limits under [TII's] insurance policy . . . ." Crider closed the paragraph with the same qualification, that TII "really [does] not have anything to offer beyond limits and any excess judgment is not collectible." Certainly, the letter includes an estimated dollar amount for Plaintiffs' consideration, stating that " here is approximately $575,000 remaining on the insurance policy at this point." (Emphasis added). However, it is undisputed in the record that the Plaintiffs were aware that the policy had eroding limits, and that it continued to erode as the trial preparation progressed. Crider's affidavit, which is unchallenged in the record, states clearly that Crider informed Plaintiffs' counsel about the mock trial that was to take place on the day that the offer was made. The a
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.
|
|