Maqbool v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, 3:24-cv-00020

Plaintiff was involved in a personal injury lawsuit in Texas state court against Jovel James Bellamy and Goody Goody Liquor, Inc., insured by Nationwide Insurance.
Plaintiff’s counsel entered into a Rule 11 settlement agreement on behalf of Plaintiff to resolve the case for $165,000, but Plaintiff refused to sign the final settlement documents, claiming her lawyer was not authorized to settle.
After Plaintiff’s refusal, the Original Defendants sought enforcement of the Rule 11 Agreement in state court, but the underlying case was dismissed for want of prosecution when Plaintiff failed to appear.
Plaintiff’s attempts to reinstate the suit and continued refusal to sign settlement documents persisted; her counsel ultimately withdrew from the case.
Over three years later, Plaintiff demanded payment from the insurer under the previously repudiated agreement, then sued Nationwide Mutual Insurance in federal court for breach of contract after denial of payment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Liability of insurer under Rule 11 Agreement	Plaintiff claims entitlement to $165,000 as per the settlement agreement.	Defendants argue Plaintiff repudiated the agreement, excusing any obligation.	The Court held Plaintiff repudiated the agreement, so no insurer liability.
Enforceability of settlement after repudiation	Plaintiff seeks to enforce the agreement years later.	Defendants argue Plaintiff’s repeated refusals constitute an unequivocal repudiation that was accepted.	Repeated repudiation and defendant acceptance bars enforcement by plaintiff.
Timeliness of Plaintiff’s claim	Plaintiff filed suit after a 3-year gap, demanding settlement payment.	Defendants stress the passage of time and lengthy inaction as further repudiation.	Plaintiff’s claims are time-barred due to repudiation and lack of follow-up.
Correct party to sue (identity of insurer)	Plaintiff names Nationwide as insurer.	Defendant argues another entity is technically the insurer but substance is unaffected.	Decided on repudiation; court declines to address which entity is liable.

Turner v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 9 F.4th 300 (5th Cir. 2021) (explains the general rule against directly suing an insurer before establishing the insured’s liability)
Ford Motor Co. v. Castillo, 279 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. 2009) (settlement agreements may be enforced as contracts even if a party withdraws consent before judgment)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for granting summary judgment)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (movant’s burden and nonmovant’s responding burden on summary judgment)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (standard for summary judgment, viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant)