Lunas v. Cooperativa de Seguros Multiples de Puerto Rico
100 So. 3d 239
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Lunas's sinkhole loss was acknowledged as covered under his policy.
- On Sept. 10, 2010, Lunas offered to settle via counsel, demanding a draft within seven days; policy-limit amount not disclosed.
- Oct. 7, 2010, insurer sent cost-to-repair reports and a release conditioned on receiving a $115,861 settlement check.
- Oct. 28, 2010, insurer’s counsel described Lunas's split-check demand: two checks, with inconsistent payees and amounts.
- Nov. 12, 2010, insurer issued a single $115,861 check payable to multiple parties including the mortgagee and Thompson Group.
- Trial court found an enforceable settlement; appellate court reverses, concluding no meeting of the minds and thus no contract.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a valid settlement agreement formed | Lunas asserts there was a meeting of the minds on essential terms. | Insurer contends terms were not identical and no mutual assent. | No settlement agreement; lack of meeting of the minds. |
| Whether the split-check terms created a meeting of the minds | The parties agreed to a split-check arrangement as settled terms. | The recorded demands and actual issuance did not match, so no agreement. | No meeting of the minds; terms not identical. |
| Whether public policy or lien rights affect enforcement of a settlement | Court should enforce the agreement regardless of mortgagee lien considerations. | Distribution should honor lien rights; court should not rewrite terms to exclude a lienholder. | No contract; remand for proper handling of proceeds consistent with liens. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schlosser v. Perez, 832 So.2d 179 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (settlement contracts governed by contract law; meeting of minds required)
- Robbie v. City of Miami, 469 So.2d 1384 (Fla.1985) (two minds test; external signs determine contract)
- Giovo v. McDonald, 791 So.2d 38 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (unconditional acceptance required for settlement terms)
- Hanson v. Maxfield, 23 So.3d 736 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (objective test for contract formation)
- Gonzalez v. Claywell, 24 So.3d 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (not proper to rewrite contract terms actually rejected by party)
- Blackhawk Heating & Plumbing Co. v. Data Lease Fin. Corp., 302 So.2d 404 (Fla.1974) (requirement of meeting of minds; external manifestations matter)