284 So.3d 1122
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2019Background
- In 2017 the Basners were in a car accident with a vehicle driven by Brett Bergdoll and owned/insured by Jason and Dara Bergdoll.
- The Bergdolls’ insurer mailed the Basners a draft release (releasing all three insureds) and a $50,000 check representing policy limits, instructing the Basners to release each insured and to notify the insurer of any changes.
- The Basners crossed out the driver-son’s name throughout the draft release, initialed the changes, signed and notarized it, attached a handwritten question (“Do we have to release the driver?”), and returned the form but did not cash the check.
- After receiving no response, the Basners’ new attorney returned the uncashed check and proceeded with litigation against all three defendants; the insurer said the parents had already been released and would be refunded.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the parent-defendants that the release was effective; the Basners appealed, arguing there was no meeting of the minds and thus no enforceable settlement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Basner) | Defendant's Argument (Bergdoll) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the signed, altered draft constituted a binding release of the parents | The alterations (scratching out driver) and question show a counteroffer, not acceptance; no meeting of minds | The returned signed form bound the Basners to the release as drafted by insurer | Reversed: alterations created a counteroffer and no binding agreement existed because essential terms were not mutually agreed |
| Whether insurer’s silence and leaving the check uncancelled constituted acceptance | Silence plus uncashed check does not show acceptance when parties were negotiating an essential term | Leaving the check outstanding implied acceptance of the revised form | Rejected: silence here did not indicate implicit acceptance; no assent to essential term (driver release) |
Key Cases Cited
- Munroe v. U.S. Food Serv., 985 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (settlement interpretation governed by contract law)
- S. Nat’l Track Servs., Inc. v. Gilley, 152 So. 3d 13 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (summary judgment standards)
- Williams v. Ingram, 605 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (settlement agreements treated as contracts)
- Hanson v. Maxfield, 23 So. 3d 736 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (offer and acceptance required for settlement)
- Nichols v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest, 834 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (acceptance must be absolute, identical, and in prescribed mode)
- de Vaux v. Westwood Baptist Church, 953 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (continued negotiation on essential terms defeats meeting of minds)
- Central Props., Inc. v. Robbinson, 450 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (counteroffers and lack of mutual assent)
- Grant v. Lyons, 17 So. 3d 708 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (counteroffer principles; silence generally insufficient for acceptance)
- Aten v. Dell Air Heating, 81 So. 3d 643 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (denial of summary judgment is nonfinal/nonappealable)