363 Ga. App. 251
Ga. Ct. App.2022Background
- Robert and Ami Ligon served a written OCGA § 9-11-67.1 motor-vehicle settlement offer to American Family/insured Li Na Hu that included the five material statutory terms and specified certain mandatory acts for acceptance.
- The offer required payment of $100,000 and delivery of a release that strictly complied with detailed conditions (e.g., express reference to an affidavit by Hu that no other insurance existed; signature lines only for the Ligons; no language placing the release under seal).
- American Family delivered a $100,000 check, a release, and other documents to the Ligons; the release deviated from the offer in multiple respects (no specific affidavit reference, included a signature line for a notary/other, and included language indicating it was under seal).
- The Ligons returned the check and documents and notified American Family that the offer had been rejected for noncompliance.
- Robert Ligon then sued Hu; Hu moved to enforce a settlement on the basis that American Family’s tender had accepted the offer. The trial court granted enforcement and dismissed Ligon’s suit; Ligon appealed.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding no binding settlement was formed because American Family failed to comply precisely with the offer’s material acceptance terms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether American Family’s tender created a binding settlement by accepting the Ligons’ § 9-11-67.1 offer | Ligon: No — American Family’s release varied from mandatory terms, so there was no acceptance | Hu/American Family: Tendering the check and release constituted acceptance and created a binding settlement | Reversed — acceptance must strictly comply with the offer; material variances in the release prevented formation of a binding settlement |
Key Cases Cited
- Pritchard v. Mendoza, 357 Ga. App. 283 (Ga. Ct. App. 2020) (standard of review: view evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- de Paz v. de Pineda, 361 Ga. App. 293 (Ga. Ct. App. 2021) (offeror controls terms; failure to comply with precise terms is fatal to acceptance)
- Grange Mut. Cas. Co. v. Woodard, 300 Ga. 848 (Ga. 2017) (acceptance may be by performing a required act)
- Frickey v. Jones, 280 Ga. 573 (Ga. 2006) (acceptance must be unequivocal and without variance)
- White v. Cheek, 360 Ga. App. 557 (Ga. Ct. App. 2021) (failure to provide the unvaried release required by offer prevents a binding settlement)
- Jervis v. Amos, 358 Ga. App. 589 (Ga. Ct. App. 2021) (failure to perform an act required to accept a § 9-11-67.1 offer defeats enforcement)