Laskowski v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 5:11-cv-00340

Plaintiffs Mark Laskowski and Richard Hall sued Liberty Mutual; trial repeatedly postponed and was set for Feb 2, 2015 before counsel withdrawal delays.
In mid-January 2015 plaintiffs’ counsel Kevin Kuehner and Liberty’s counsel Thomas O’Connor engaged in settlement negotiations by phone and email over several days.
Kuehner reported that plaintiffs would accept $95,000; O’Connor initially offered $60,000, then both counsel agreed to explore $75,000 with their clients.
On Jan 15 plaintiffs told Kuehner $75,000 was unacceptable and wanted to proceed to trial; at about the same time Kuehner saw an email from O’Connor purporting to accept a $95,000 offer.
Liberty filed to enforce a purported oral settlement for $95,000; plaintiffs denied a binding agreement and disputed counsel’s authority to accept $95,000.
The district court considered the Winston factors (intent to be bound without writing) and denied Liberty’s motion to enforce the settlement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether parties formed a binding oral settlement	No meeting of minds; plaintiffs did not authorize $95,000; no agreement on liens or other terms	Parties agreed to $95,000; counsel communications created binding agreement	Denied — court doubted a meeting of minds and did not enforce settlement
Whether Winston factors support enforcement without writing	Factors weigh against enforcement (no partial performance; material terms unresolved; settlements normally written)	Factors favor enforcement (no express reservation not to be bound)	Denied — balance of factors weighed against enforcement
Whether there was partial performance sufficient to enforce	No — no payment or dismissal occurred	Liberty argued delay in pretrial filings constituted partial performance	Denied — court found no meaningful partial performance
Whether resolution of liens was a material term	Plaintiffs: lien allocation was not discussed and is material	Liberty: lien resolution not material to the dollar amount	Denied enforcement — lack of agreement on lien responsibility weighed against enforcement

Meetings & Expositions, Inc. v. Tandy Corp., 490 F.2d 714 (2d Cir. 1974) (district court may summarily enforce settlements on motion)
Winston v. Mediafare Entm’t Corp., 777 F.2d 78 (2d Cir. 1985) (four-factor test for intent to be bound absent a writing)
United States v. Sforza, 326 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2003) (settlement agreements construed by contract principles)
Ciaramella v. Reader’s Digest Ass’n, Inc., 131 F.3d 320 (2d Cir. 1997) (partial performance and writings generally required for settlement enforcement)
R.G. Grp., Inc. v. Horn & Hardart Co., 751 F.2d 69 (2d Cir. 1984) (consideration whether anything remained to negotiate)
Benicorp Ins. Co. v. Nat’l Med. Health Card Sys., Inc., 447 F. Supp. 2d 329 (S.D.N.Y.) (burden on party seeking enforcement to prove existence of settlement)
Ostman v. St. John’s Episcopal Hosp., 918 F. Supp. 635 (E.D.N.Y. 1996) (settlement requires offer, acceptance, consideration)