Trout v. Apicella
2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 1049
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Trout, a passenger injured in a truck owned by Medlar and operated by Apicella, is covered by Geico policies with $100,000 BI per person and $300,000 BI per occurrence, and $50,000 PD limit.
- Geico sent Trout two checks totaling $200,000 and proposed a release of all claims after a settlement discussion.
- Trout retained counsel Zimmet, who sought an oath/affidavit of coverage under Florida law and warned of pending disputes over coverage and releases.
- Geico sent amended proposed releases, but Trout’s counsel rejected them, insisting on a single bodily-injury release without third-party indemnification and within 15 days of valid checks and disclosures.
- Geico’s November 10, 2008 response purported to accept Trout’s offer but stated it would not create new terms and suggested revisions to the release were possible.
- Trout filed suit after Geico did not timely accept the October 31, 2008 offer; the trial court granted summary judgment for Geico, holding that there was a settlement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did a binding settlement exist? | Trout contends no binding agreement formed due to non-identical terms. | Geico argues its acceptance of Trout's offer created a binding settlement. | No binding settlement; acceptance did not mirror the offer's essential terms. |
| Did Geico's November 10, 2008 letter constitute proper acceptance? | Offer required exact terms; partial performance not present in Geico's response. | Geico's letter indicated willingness to change wording and consider amendments, constituting acceptance. | Not a valid acceptance under the mirror-image rule; release tendered did not meet offer terms. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nichols v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest, 834 So.2d 217 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (acceptance must be absolute, identical, and proper timing under mirror image rule)
- Williams v. Ingram, 605 So.2d 890 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (mirror image requirements for settlement formation)
- Montgomery v. English, 902 So.2d 836 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (mirror image rule described for settlement offers)
- Robbie v. City of Miami, 469 So.2d 1384 (Fla.1985) (mutual assent to material terms required for settlement)
- Carroll v. Carroll, 532 So.2d 1109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (court examines whether terms were settled and binding)
- Knowling v. Manavoglu, 73 So.3d 301 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (release tendered did not meet an offer's dictates; similar to instant case)