Kingwood Home Health Care, L.L.C. D/B/A Health Solutions Home Health v. Amedisys, Inc., D/B/A Amedisys Texas, Ltd
375 S.W.3d 397
Tex. App.2012Background
- Amedisys sued KHHC and two former employees for multiple claims; employees settled separately.
- KHHC made a written settlement offer to resolve all monetary claims for $90,000, under Chapter 42 and Rule 167, after KHHC appeared in the case.
- Amedisys sent a letter allegedly accepting the offer, stating acceptance of all monetary claims and that KHHC would tender $90,000 within 15 days.
- KHHC refused to pay and filed a withdrawal of consent to settle; Amedisys amended its petition to claim breach of the purported settlement.
- The trial court granted summary judgment favoring Amedisys on the settlement claim; KHHC appealed seeking reversal; court reversed and remanded based on contract formation questions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Amedisys's response a valid acceptance of KHHC's Rule 167 offer? | Amedisys accepted all monetary claims. | Acceptance did not include all asserted or potential claims. | No binding settlement; acceptance ineffective; remand for proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Parker Drilling Co. v. Romfor Supply Co., 316 S.W.3d 68 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2010) (requirements for acceptance identical to offer terms)
- Antonini v. Harris Cnty. Appraisal Dist., 999 S.W.2d 608 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999) (contract formation; acceptance must mirror material terms)
- Gunn Infiniti, Inc. v. O’Byrne, 996 S.W.2d 854 (Tex. 1999) (settlement terms and release implications of 'settle')
- Baty v. ProTech Ins. Agency, 63 S.W.3d 841 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001) (claims not mentioned in a release not discharged)