Marin v. Infinity Auto Ins. Co., 239 So. 3d 751

Marin was injured in a Dec. 24, 2013 automobile accident and treated at Jackson Memorial Hospital (JMH).
Marin’s original counsel did not cash an initial $10,000 check tendered by Infinity that named Marin, his then-attorney, and JMH as payees.
On April 7, 2014 Marin’s new attorney demanded tender of the $10,000 policy limit by April 28, 2014 (the demand specified only the amount and the deadline).
On April 25, 2014 Infinity sent a letter saying it would meet the demand and tendered a $10,000 check (initially naming JMH as a co-payee but later reissuing checks without JMH); Infinity invited proposed modifications and offered to reissue the check if JMH’s lien was resolved.
Marin’s attorney treated the inclusion of JMH as a counteroffer and rejected the checks; Infinity moved to enforce the settlement and the trial court granted the motion and dismissed Marin’s suit with prejudice.
The appellate court affirmed, holding Infinity’s April 25 letter and tender met the two essential terms of Marin’s offer (amount and deadline), so a binding settlement was formed despite JMH being listed as a payee.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Infinity’s April 25 response was an acceptance or a counteroffer	Inclusion of JMH as co-payee added an essential term and thus converted acceptance into a counteroffer	Infinity timely met the two essential terms (tender of $10,000 by 4/28); listing JMH was a nonessential, procedural matter tied to a possible hospital lien and Infinity invited modifications	Infinity’s response was an acceptance; a valid settlement was formed and enforcement/dismissal affirmed

Mercury Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Fonseca, 3 So. 3d 415 (legal standard: formation of contract reviewed de novo)
Robbie v. City of Miami, 469 So. 2d 1384 (settlement agreements are governed by contract law)
Nichols v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest, 834 So. 2d 217 (acceptance must assent to essential terms)
Erhardt v. Duff, 729 So. 2d 529 (letter agreeing to meet settlement demands can constitute acceptance)
Giovo v. McDonald, 791 So. 2d 38 (what constitutes an essential term depends on the offer’s specified terms)
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Palm Springs Gen. Hosp. Inc. of Hialeah, 232 So. 2d 737 (hospital liens attach on admission; insurer may issue joint check or interplead)
Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Gonzalez, 512 So. 2d 269 (insurer may issue joint check to hospital and insured when lien status uncertain)
Boyko v. Ilardi, 613 So. 2d 103 (execution of settlement documents may be a procedural formality, not a condition precedent)