Penn v. MUKTAR
309 Ga. App. 849
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Cedric and Tina Penn sued Zubeida Muktar for bodily injury and property damages following a motor vehicle collision.
- Muktar was insured under a State Farm liability policy; Penns sought coverage under that policy.
- The Penns alleged there was an negotiated settlement, but the trial court denied their motion for partial summary judgment on settlement existence.
- Penns offered to settle only bodily injury claims for policy limits, conditioned on a release limiting those claims and preserving UM rights elsewhere.
- State Farm responded within 20 days with a $50,000 draft and a proposed release that purported to settle all claims, including property damage and other claims.
- The Penns refused to sign the release; the court held there was no meeting of the minds and no settlement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a meeting of the minds on settlement scope? | Penns contend no meeting of minds. | State Farm's acceptance formed a counteroffer. | No meeting of minds; no settlement. |
| Did Penns’ bodily-injury settlement offer constitute a counteroffer? | Offer limited to bodily injury with preserving UM rights. | Response with draft and broad release created counteroffer. | Yes, creation of counteroffer. |
| Did State Farm’s response constitute acceptance of the offer? | Penns did not accept; no agreement. | Draft and release operated as acceptance/counteroffer. | No valid acceptance; no settlement. |
| Does the release language negate a settlement for only bodily injury claims? | Release attempted broader release improperly. | Release implied full settlement of all claims. | Release implied broader settlement; improper under offer. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Martin, 142 Ga. App. 311, 235 S.E.2d 728 (1977) (illustrates counteroffer concept in settlement)
- Herring v. Dunning, 213 Ga. App. 695, 446 S.E.2d 199 (1994) (release implications in settlement context)