Kitchens v. Ezell
315 Ga. App. 444
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- June 28, 2009 car collision between Ezell and Kitchens; Makayla Kitchens died from injuries.
- Ezell’s car was owned by Jackson and insured by State Farm; policy limits were $25,000/$50,000 and $25,000 property damage.
- August 7, 2009, counsel for Kitchenses offered to settle bodily injury claims; request included information and a release preserving uninsured motorist claims.
- State Farm accepted the offer on August 21, 2009 and provided documents; probate court approval for Makayla’s release was anticipated due to her being a minor.
- August 26–29, 2009, State Farm sent proposed limited releases; Kitchenses’ counsel stated he would review and respond; they ultimately rejected the proposal.
- August 31, 2009, Kitchenses filed suit; Ezell/Jackson moved to enforce settlement; trial court granted, and awarded attorney fees to State Farm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a valid settlement formed? | Kitchenses: no settlement formed; offer required acceptance by performance, not a promise. | Ezell/Jackson: settlement formed by State Farm’s acceptance of offer and delivery of releases. | No settlement formed; no meeting of minds. |
| Did State Farm accept by performance within the deadline? | Acceptance required performance within 20 days as stated; release terms were improper. | State Farm’s release proposal constituted acceptance under the offer. | Acceptance by performance not satisfied; no valid acceptance. |
| Did the proposed release comply with the offer and governing law? | Proposed release released all claims including property damage, not just bodily injury; not conforming. | Release conformed to offer and law; ambiguities resolved by preclusion of other claims. | Release terms did not conform to the offer; no enforceable settlement. |
| Whether the attorney-fee award under OCGA 9-15-14 was proper? | No justification for fees; the position was legally supportable. | Fees awarded due to lack of justification and conduct delaying proceedings. | Fees award was an abuse of discretion; reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Penn v. Muktar, 309 Ga.App. 849 (Ga. App. 2011) (offer and acceptance by performance; counteroffer analysis)
- Moreno v. Strickland, 255 Ga.App. 850 (Ga. App. 2002) (proper release may be a condition of performance, not acceptance)
- Herring v. Dunning, 213 Ga.App. 695 (Ga. App. 1994) (offers and acceptance mechanics; reliance on specified means)
- Jones v. Frickey, 274 Ga.App. 398 (Ga. App. 2005) (purported acceptance with conditions constitutes a counteroffer)