Grant v. Sears
379 S.W.3d 905
Mo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Grant filed a damages petition against Sears arising from a 3 March 2009 motor-vehicle collision; Sears was driving a rental car insured by American Family with policy limits of $25,000.
- First Recovery Group notified Grant’s counsel of liens by Mercy CarePlus for medical expenses totaling about $32k; later Mercy CarePlus’s lien amount grew to $36,361.87.
- American Family sent a December 21, 2009 letter which appeared to accept the $25,000 policy limits but added conditions requiring final lien letters and Medicare/Medicaid information.
- On January 7, 2010, Grant’s counsel stated, on behalf of Grant, that they accepted the $25,000 policy limits, without expressly addressing the additional lien terms.
- Over the ensuing months, American Family pressed for lien details and Medicare/Medicaid information; Russell responded that there had been no discussion of those federal requirements and warned of breach if payment was not timely made.
- In March–May 2010, American Family outlined lien amounts and required Medicare information; Russell asserted the settlement was being renegotiated and later declared the agreement void, leading to ongoing litigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a meeting of the minds to form a settlement agreement? | Grant: no meeting of minds on lien terms; January 7 acceptance was not conditioned. | Sears: January 7 acceptance incorporated American Family’s counteroffer including lien terms. | No meeting of minds; enforceable settlement not formed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reppy v. Winters, 351 S.W.3d 717 (Mo.App. W.D. 2011) (establishes clear, convincing standard for settlement proof; counteroffers affect formation)
- Pierson v. Kirkpatrick, 357 S.W.3d 293 (Mo.App. S.D. 2012) (essential contract elements; mutuality of agreement required)
- Kunzie v. Jack-in-the-Box, Inc., 330 S.W.3d 476 (Mo.App. E.D. 2010) (meeting of minds requires definite offer and unequivocal acceptance)
- Guidry v. Charter Commc'ns, 269 S.W.3d 520 (Mo.App. E.D. 2008) (silence generally not acceptance; exceptions do not apply here)
- Muilenburg, Inc. v. Cherokee Rose Design and Build, L.L.C., 250 S.W.3d 848 (Mo.App. S.D. 2008) (objective evaluation of acceptance signals governs contract formation)