Blackstone Ex Rel. Estate of Whitley v. Brink
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110412
D.D.C.2014Background
- Theresa Whitley, a pedestrian, was killed in a June 23, 2012 accident in D.C.; her estate retained attorney Ronald Mitchell to pursue claims.
- Defendant James M. Brink had a State Farm liability policy with $100,000 limits; separate State Farm PIP unit determined PIP did not apply.
- State Farm liability adjuster Paul Oltchick offered the $100,000 policy-limit settlement and sent a release to Mitchell; Oltchick kept contemporaneous notes.
- On September 10, 2013, Oltchick says Mitchell orally accepted the $100,000 policy‑limit offer and instructed payment to “The Estate of Theresa Whitley and her attorney, Ronald Mitchell.”
- Oltchick mailed a $100,000 check on September 19; Mitchell received it, then sent a letter (September 23) rejecting the settlement and returned the check.
- Brink moved to enforce the alleged oral settlement; after an evidentiary hearing the court credited Oltchick’s contemporaneous notes and testimony and granted the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parties formed an enforceable oral settlement | Mitchell contends he did not accept; outstanding terms (medical bills, PIP, release language) unresolved | Oltchick asserts Mitchell unconditionally accepted on Sept. 10 and asked for check | Court held parties agreed to material terms and intended to be bound; settlement enforceable |
| What are material terms of the alleged settlement | Plaintiff: other terms (medical payment, PIP, specific release language) were material and unresolved | Defendant: only material terms were $100,000 payment and release of claims | Court held material terms were payment of $100,000 and mutual release; other issues were immaterial |
| Credibility of witnesses / evidentiary standard | Mitchell’s testimony denied acceptance; no contemporaneous notes | Oltchick’s contemporaneous log, consistent documents, and testimony showed acceptance; movant must prove by clear and convincing evidence | Court credited Oltchick; found clear and convincing evidence of agreement |
| Effect of post-acceptance repudiation | Plaintiff: returning check and rejection letter shows no intent to be bound | Defendant: post‑acceptance regrets do not negate prior binding agreement | Court held post‑acceptance rejection insufficient to rescind a valid oral settlement |
Key Cases Cited
- Monroe v. Foreman, 540 A.2d 736 (D.C. 1988) (describing PIP/medical expense coverage purpose)
- Jack Baker, Inc. v. Office Space Dev. Corp., 664 A.2d 1236 (D.C. 1995) (oral contracts enforceable absent statute of frauds)
- Rosenthal v. Nat’l Produce Co., 573 A.2d 365 (D.C. 1990) (material terms must be sufficiently definite)
- Duffy v. Duffy, 881 A.2d 630 (D.C. 2005) (contract requires agreement on material terms and intent to be bound)
- Perles v. Kagy, 473 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (assessing intent to be bound from words, writings, and conduct)
- Queen v. Schultz, 747 F.3d 879 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (payment and release often material in settlement context)
- Flippo Constr. Co. v. Mike Parks Diving Corp., 531 A.2d 263 (D.C. 1987) (limits on relief for unilateral mistake)
- Wise v. Riley, 106 F. Supp. 2d 35 (D.D.C. 2000) (amount and release as material terms in settlement)