Knowling v. Manavoglu
73 So. 3d 301
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Appellant Knowling alleges bodily injuries from a motor vehicle collision with Emel Manavoglu; Manavoglu was insured by Allstate Indemnity Company.
- Appellant’s attorney sent a pre-suit settlement offer to Allstate outlining conditions for acceptance.
- Allstate replied with policy information, a promise to tender policy limits, and a proposed release that did not fit every claim’s facts.
- Allstate mailed a $10,000 check and a release stating it would settle bodily injury claims, but Appellant did not cash the check and no further communications occurred for about six months.
- After six months, Knowling’s counsel returned the check and threatened to sue; suit was filed, and Appellees raised the settlement as a defense.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Appellees concluding a presuit settlement; the appellate court reversed, holding no binding settlement existed due to terms nonconformity and added indemnification terms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a binding presuit settlement before suit? | Knowling asserts acceptance mirrored terms. | Manavoglu/Allstate contend acceptance created binding contract. | No binding settlement existed. |
| Did the release meet the essential term described as a general BI release? | Knowling argues release matched general BI release. | Allstate argues release deviates from the offer. | Release did not meet essential term. |
| Did the indemnification language in the release form add an essential term? | Knowling contends indemnification was not in the offer. | Allstate’s release added a term altering settlement. | Indemnification language was essential and not present in the offer. |
| Did the policy limits check and 627.4137 items satisfy the offer terms? | Knowling contends terms were not fully met. | Allstate provided policy limits and some statutory items. | Offer terms not fully satisfied. |
| Should the court treat the acceptance as a counter-offer due to added terms? | Knowling argues acceptance mirrored terms. | Allstate’s terms added a new contractual element. | Acceptance constituted a counter-offer; no binding contract. |
Key Cases Cited
- Robbie v. City of Miami, 469 So. 2d 1384 (Fla. 1985) (settlements governed by contract interpretation rules)
- ABC Liquors, Inc. v. Centimark Corp., 967 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (settlement agreements interpreted as contracts)
- King v. Bray, 867 So.2d 1224 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (mutual assent to essential terms required)
- David v. Richman, 568 So.2d 922 (Fla. 1990) (discussion of essential terms in contract formation)
- Gendzier v. Bielecki, 97 So.2d 604 (Fla.1957) (contract formation depends on same terms spoken)