Hansen v. Doan
320 Ga. App. 609
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Hansen sustained severe motorcycle injuries when Doan’s car struck him (June 22, 2011).
- Counsel for Hansen sent a 33-3-28 policy-limits request to Liberty Mutual on July 1, 2011 asserting serious injuries.
- Liberty Mutual acknowledged $25,000 liability limit after a phone conversation with Hansen’s counsel’s disclosure.
- On July 11, 2011, Hansen’s demand offered to settle for $25,000 with a Limited Release (OCGA § 33-24-41.1) and no indemnity language, to be received within 12 days.
- Liberty Mutual later sent an interview request and then provided a limited release containing indemnification language on July 22, 2011, along with an invitation to modify terms.
- Liberty Mutual tendered the $25,000 check but the release did not conform to Hansen’s demand; Bodoh withdrew the offer on July 26, 2011 and Hansen filed suit, with the trial court enforcing the settlement, which the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Liberty Mutual’s tender of a limited release with indemnity was an unequivocal acceptance. | Hansen contends no meeting of minds; release terms diverged. | Doan contends the release could be tailored; acceptance was implied by performance within the time limit. | Yes; binding contract formed; release acceptable with future tailoring. |
| Whether acceptance occurred timely under the offer’s deadline. | Hansen argues timely delivery guaranteed acceptance. | Liberty Mutual complied within the deadline by tendering the check. | Yes; timely acceptance under the “right for any reason” rule. |
Key Cases Cited
- Herring v. Dunning, 213 Ga. App. 695 (Ga. App. 1994) (acceptance must be unconditional and identical to offer terms)
- Turner v. Williamson, 321 Ga. App. 209 (Ga. App. 2013) (tendered release could form agreement where mode of acceptance not specified)
- Kitchens v. Ezell, 315 Ga. App. 444 (Ga. App. 2012) (physical precedent; distinguishable facts; acceptance issues)
- McReynolds v. Krebs, 290 Ga. 850 (Ga. 2012) (acceptance must be unequivocal and without variance)
- Penn v. Muktar, 309 Ga. App. 849 (Ga. App. 2011) (offer required insurer to perform within a time frame; no settlement when not fulfilled)
- Frickey v. Jones, 280 Ga. 573 (Ga. 2006) (settlement terms control; insurer’s response cannot add unagreed terms)
- Ruskin v. AAF-McQuay, Inc., 284 Ga. App. 49 (Ga. App. 2007) (formation of settlement requires mutuality)