Tillman v. Mejabi
331 Ga. App. 415
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- On August 30, 2011 John Tillman was involved in an auto collision with Funmilayo Mejabi; plaintiffs sought damages including medical expenses and a loss-of-consortium claim.
- On October 30, 2012 the Tillmans demanded the policy limits of $25,000 "in full and final settlement" by a stated deadline; the letter did not specify execution of a particular release.
- Progressive (Mejabi’s insurer) responded with a $25,000 check and an enclosed general release form requiring plaintiff to resolve medical liens and indemnify releasees.
- The Tillmans’ counsel returned the check, rejecting the general release and stating they would accept only a limited liability release with $25,000. Progressive declined to provide a limited release.
- The Tillmans then sued Mejabi; Progressive moved to enforce the settlement. The trial court found a meeting of the minds on payment of $25,000 in full and final settlement and ordered plaintiff to execute a release; the Tillmans appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Progressive’s tendered check plus a general release was an acceptance or a counteroffer | Tillman: inclusion of an unacceptable general release added new material terms, so no unconditional acceptance occurred | Progressive: agreeing to pay $25,000 satisfied the essential terms of the offer; the release form was incidental and did not negate acceptance | Acceptance: court held Progressive accepted the essential terms (policy limits for full and final settlement); the release form did not prevent formation |
| Whether an offer to settle silent on release terms is sufficiently definite | Tillman: silence means no agreement to execute any particular release; plaintiff did not agree to the general release | Progressive: a settlement for policy limits implicitly includes plaintiff’s promise to execute some instrument terminating the controversy | Definiteness: court held an implied promise to execute a release is reasonably necessary to effect settlement and makes the offer capable of acceptance |
| Whether the inclusion of an unacceptable release form defeats mutual assent | Tillman: presenting an unacceptable release shows lack of mutual assent and is a counteroffer | Progressive: presenting a release form may be condition of performance but is not required to accept plaintiff’s offer | Mutual assent: court held the mere presentation of a release form unacceptable to plaintiff does not negate the meeting of the minds on essential terms |
| Whether plaintiff must execute an appropriate release to effectuate the agreed settlement | Tillman: would refuse to sign the specific general release offered | Progressive: plaintiff must execute a release to accomplish the agreed full and final settlement | Requirement: court ordered plaintiff to execute and return a release in furtherance of the settlement agreement |
Key Cases Cited
- Herring v. Dunning, 213 Ga. App. 695 (1994) (an offer to settle for policy limits implicitly includes plaintiff’s promise to execute some instrument terminating the controversy)
- Johnson v. DeKalb County, 314 Ga. App. 790 (2012) (settlement-enforcement principles and summary-judgment–like review)
- Turner v. Williamson, 321 Ga. App. 209 (2013) (silence as to release terms does not prevent acceptance where an implied promise to execute a release is necessary)
- Newton v. Ragland, 325 Ga. App. 371 (2013) (application of implied-release principle and enforceability of settlement terms)