Trexler v. Billingsley
602, 2016
| Del. | Jun 21, 2017Background
- On Sept. 6, 2013, Billingsley rear-ended Trexler; Trexler alleged serious injuries and sought damages exceeding Billingsley’s $100,000 State Farm policy limits.
- Trexler’s counsel served a written 30-day demand for policy limits under 6 Del. C. § 2301(d) and repeatedly pressed for status updates and tender of the limits over several months.
- Billingsley’s insurer agreed to pay the $100,000 policy limits; counsel emailed on May 20, 2016 that the carrier had confirmed settlement and that a check and release were being prepared.
- Trexler’s counsel sent a May 18 email stating the deadline to tender the policy was May 20 and that he would recommend trial thereafter; on May 31 Trexler’s counsel said he was awaiting client authority to accept.
- Billingsley’s counsel mailed the settlement check, release, and dismissal stipulation on June 6; the Superior Court dismissed the case with prejudice on July 12 after being notified the case was settled.
- Trexler later sought to avoid the settlement, arguing her counsel’s communications were solicitations (invitations to offer) and that she never accepted an actual offer; Superior Court enforced the settlement and the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Trexler) | Defendant's Argument (Billingsley) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a binding settlement was formed by counsel communications | Trexler: counsel’s emails were solicitations/invitations for an offer, not an offer; she retained final approval and did not accept | Billingsley: Trexler repeatedly offered policy-limits settlement; May 18 email constituted a final offer that was accepted when carrier tendered limits and parties acted like settled | The Court held a binding contract was formed based on the May 18 email and subsequent acceptance/tender; affirmed enforcement |
| Whether earlier 30-day demand remained open or was extended by later emails | Trexler: the original 30-day offer expired and later emails did not revive a binding offer | Billingsley: later emails (April/May) extended/reiterated the demand such that carrier acceptance created a contract | Court: April email was conditional (illusory) and did not extend; but May 18 email was a clear final offer that could be accepted |
| Effect of conditioning acceptance on client approval in April email | Trexler: April email showed acceptance required client approval; no binding agreement | Billingsley: overall course of negotiations showed intent to be bound | Court: conditioning acceptance on client approval renders promise illusory; therefore April email did not create enforceable extension |
| Relevance of post-exchange conduct (check, court notification, dismissal) | Trexler: post-exchange conduct reflected ongoing decisionmaking and no final acceptance by client | Billingsley: parties’ conduct (tendered check, counsel’s statements to court, dismissal) supports existence of settlement | Court: post-exchange conduct corroborated formation and enforcement; Trexler’s later regret insufficient to avoid contract |
Key Cases Cited
- Osborn ex rel. Osborn v. Kemp, 991 A.2d 1153 (Del. 2010) (settlement agreements are contracts reviewed under ordinary contract law)
- Leeds v. First Allied Conn. Corp., 521 A.2d 1095 (Del. Ch. 1986) (tests whether a reasonable negotiator would conclude negotiations produced a contract)
- Milford Power Co., LLC v. PDC Milford Power, LLC, 866 A.2d 738 (Del. Ch. 2004) (post-contract conduct may evidence parties’ intent)