Murphy v. Home Depot
2012 MT 23
| Mont. | 2012Background
- Murphy was injured at a Montana Home Depot in August 2003; cut on left thumb required 12 stitches.
- Initial medical bill paid by Home Depot; later infection and additional care; Murphy missed 11 days of work.
- Murphy sued Home Depot in August 2006; settlement discussions ensued proposing $7,500 (net of prior payment) as a global settlement.
- Murphy's counsel attached a release stating the release would cover only injuries directly resulting from the incident; Home Depot proposed a broad all-claims release.
- Communications failed to produce executed settlement documents; Home Depot moved to enforce a settlement; District Court granted enforcement.
- Court held the parties did not reach mutual consent on essential terms; reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there mutual consent on essential terms to form a settlement? | Murphy did not consent to all claims release. | Global settlement implied full release of all claims. | No mutual consent on essential terms. |
| Is the term 'global settlement' sufficiently unambiguous to bind the parties? | Term was ambiguous; parties did not agree on what claims would be released. | Term unambiguously conveyed full resolution of all current and future claims. | Not unambiguous; no agreement on released claims. |
| Does Hetherington control the formation of a settlement when one party later objects? | Hetherington supports binding terms despite later latent intent. | Hetherington is not controlling here due to different facts. | Distinguishing Hetherington; no binding contract here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hetherington v. Ford Motor Co., 257 Mont. 395, 849 P.2d 1039 (1993) (two material terms may bind when other terms not agreed)
- Dambrowski v. Champion International Corp., 2003 MT 233, 317 Mont. 218, 76 P.3d 1080 (2003) (settlement contracts governed by contract law)
- Lockhead v. Weinstein, 2003 MT 360, 319 Mont. 62, 81 P.3d 1284 (2003) (mutual assent required on all essential terms)
- Kortum-Managhan v. Herbergers, 2009 MT 79, 349 Mont. 475, 204 P.3d 693 (2009) (mutual consent on essential terms; latent intent not binding)