Progressive Mountain Insurance Company v. Ernest Butler, 364 Ga. App. 439

Ernest Butler was injured in a 2019 vehicle accident and retained attorney Sarah Jett to negotiate with Progressive Mountain Insurance.
Progressive offered $17,500 to settle Butler’s bodily-injury claim; Jett emailed a letter stating Butler accepted that offer, asked that the check and settlement documents be sent to her firm, and said the firm would address valid liens.
Days later Jett withdrew as counsel and asserted an attorneys’ lien; Butler hired new counsel who sought $350,000.
Progressive filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment and moved to enforce the alleged settlement; Butler denied ever consenting and argued Jett lacked authority and her letter did not form a binding agreement.
The trial court denied enforcement, finding no written offer, no signed release, and that the parties had not formed an enforceable agreement; the Court of Appeals reviewed de novo and reversed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Progressive)	Defendant's Argument (Butler)	Held
Whether attorney Jett had authority to bind Butler to a settlement	Jett had apparent authority to accept a settlement on Butler’s behalf	Jett lacked actual authority from Butler to accept the offer	Jett had apparent authority; client bound unless opposing party knew of restrictions (Brumbelow)
Whether Jett’s January 22 letter formed a binding settlement	The letter unconditionally accepted Progressive’s $17,500 offer and created a contract	The letter did not create a binding agreement; Butler never consented	The letter was an unconditional acceptance of a definite offer and created a binding settlement
Whether informational logistics (payment instructions, lien handling) made the letter a counteroffer	Those logistics were purely informational and did not add conditions	Such language altered terms and thus was not acceptance	Logistics were informational only and did not convert acceptance into a counteroffer (McReynolds, Herring)
Whether absence of a signed release, a written offer, or payment defeats enforceability	Written offer, signed release, or payment were not prerequisites to formation once an offer was accepted	Because no release was signed, no written offer existed, and Progressive did not pay, no agreement existed	Execution of release or payment affects performance, not existence of contract; writing requirement satisfied by attorney letter (Brumbelow, Pourreza)

Brumbelow v. Northern Propane Gas Co., 251 Ga. 674 (1983) (attorney has apparent authority to bind client to settlement; client’s remedy is against attorney if agent exceeded actual authority)
Grange Mut. Cas. Co. v. Woodard, 300 Ga. 848 (2017) (settlement agreements governed by ordinary contract formation rules)
Vildibill v. Palmer Johnson of Savannah, Inc., 244 Ga. App. 747 (2000) (attorney’s letter accepting a dollar amount in settlement created binding agreement)
Herring v. Dunning, 213 Ga. App. 695 (1994) (attorney’s acceptance letter created binding settlement; inquiries about liens were not counteroffers)
McReynolds v. Krebs, 290 Ga. 850 (2012) (an acceptance that imposes new conditions is a counteroffer)
Turner v. Williamson, 321 Ga. App. 209 (2013) (unequivocal acceptance by claims handler created binding settlement when conditioned only on execution of a release)
Pourreza v. Teel Appraisals & Advisory, Inc., 273 Ga. App. 880 (2005) (settlement enforceable even if offer was oral; absence of signed release at time of agreement does not invalidate it)
Ballard v. Williams, 223 Ga. App. 1 (1996) (attorney’s written memorialization of an oral settlement satisfied writing requirement)