Case Title: Shubert v. Dexter

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1995-02-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
Shubert v. Dexter1995 WY 24891 P.2d 55Case Number: 94-114Decided: 02/28/1995Supreme Court of Wyoming

Mark 
SHUBERT, Appellant (Plaintiff),

v.

Bruce DEXTER; Dean Butterfield; Board of County 
Commissioners of the County of Laramie, State of Wyoming; and Rudy Restivo, as 
Sheriff, Appellees (Defendants).

 

Appeal 
from District Court of Laramie County, Nicholas G. Kalokathis, 
J.

Daniel G. Blythe of Rogers, 
Blythe & Lewis, Cheyenne, for 
appellant.

Franklin J. Smith, County 
Atty., Wallace L. Stock, Cheyenne, for 
appellees.

Before GOLDEN, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, TAYLOR, and 
LEHMAN, JJ.

GOLDEN, 
Chief Justice.

[¶1]      We consider Mark 
Shubert's contention that the district court erred in denying his motion to 
enforce a settlement agreement.

[¶2]      We 
affirm.

[¶3]      Shubert states 
this issue:

            
Does the offer tendered by the appellee to the appellant which was 
unconditionally accepted by the appellant establish a contract which should be 
enforced?

[¶4]      In response, 
appellees, who are employees of Laramie County and Laramie County itself, posit 
this query:

            
Is the filing of a complaint, in state district court, a rejection of an 
unconditional offer to buy the peace?

[¶5]      These facts 
control our disposition of the appeal and are gleaned from Shubert's pleadings. 
On April 5, 1991, Shubert was injured in an accident which he alleged to be the 
fault of appellees. On April 2, 1993, Shubert presented his claim to Laramie 
County.1 As damages, Shubert listed: $2,153 
in medical expenses; $35,000 for future medical expenses; $100,000 for past pain 
and suffering; and, $500,000 for future pain and suffering. By letter dated 
April 5, 1993, an assistant county attorney informed Shubert that the claim was 
denied "in its entirety." On July 21, 1993, an adjuster employed by the Wyoming 
Association of Risk Management (WARM) contacted both Shubert and his counsel 
expressing concern as to whether Shubert was represented by counsel, or whether 
he wished to pursue the claim on his own, and indicating forthrightly that 
Shubert (or his counsel2) had the responsibility to provide 
WARM with more detailed information about the claim. In addition, the adjuster 
made clear that if Shubert wished to settle the matter "short of lawsuit" he 
would have to flesh out the demand for payment of his claim. In September 1993, 
the adjuster was contacted by counsel for Shubert and a conference was arranged 
at which it was agreed that additional documentation would be made available to 
the adjuster and that an independent medical examination would be necessary. By 
letter dated February 14, 1994, the adjuster iterated to Shubert's attorney the 
need for additional information, but offered to settle the claim for $6,500. 
Counsel for Shubert replied, asking for a "monetary breakdown of each element of 
the damage you have assigned to [the] claim." On March 14, 1994, the adjuster 
replied to Shubert's attorney, stating once again that additional information 
was required to further assess the claim and repeating the offer to settle the 
matter for $6,500.

[¶6]      On Tuesday, April 
5, 1994, a complaint was filed in the district court seeking damages for the 
injuries which Shubert suffered in the 1991 accident. The Governmental Claims 
Act provides that claims subject to the act "shall be forever barred unless 
commenced within one (1) year after the date the claim is filed pursuant to W.S. 
1-39-113." WYO. STAT. § 1-39-114 (1988). The limitations period for filing suit 
on Shubert's claim expired on Monday, April 4, 1994.

[¶7]      On April 8, 1994, 
appellees filed a motion to dismiss Shubert's complaint premised on the bar of 
the limitations period. On April 13, 1994, Shubert informed WARM that he would 
accept the offer to settle for $6,500. WARM then informed Shubert that it 
believed the filing of the suit represented a rejection of the offer to settle 
and noted that the statute of limitations had expired before the suit was filed. 
On April 21, 1994, Shubert filed a motion to enforce the settlement. On May 4, 
1994, the district court dismissed Shubert's suit with prejudice, based upon 
expiration of the statute of limitations. On May 6, 1994, the district court 
issued an order denying Shubert's motion to enforce the 
settlement.

[¶8]      The complaint was 
filed after the statute of limitations had expired and it was, therefore, 
barred. Taylor v. Estate of Taylor, 719 P.2d 234 (Wyo. 1986); Davis v. City of 
Casper, 710 P.2d 827, 830 (Wyo. 1985); Duke v. Housen, 589 P.2d 334, 340 (Wyo. 
1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 863, 100 S. Ct. 132, 62 L. Ed. 2d 86 (1979); Turner 
v. Turner, 582 P.2d 600 (Wyo. 1978); and see Aimonetto v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. 
Co., 365 F.2d 599 (10th Cir. 1966). We emphasize that the only issue raised by 
Shubert is whether the settlement agreement was enforceable under the 
circumstances of the case. Appellees only contend that the filing of suit 
operated as a rejection of the settlement offer. We hold that the only action 
which the district court could have taken under these circumstances was to 
dismiss the action as barred by the statute of limitations and that the district 
court, thereafter, could not enter additional orders relating to other issues in 
the case.

[¶9]      The order of the 
district court dismissing the complaint for the reason that it was barred by the 
statute of limitations is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1 WYO. STAT. § 1-39-113 (Supp. 1994) 
provides:

(a) No action 
shall be brought under this act against a governmental entity unless the claim 
upon which the action is based is presented to the entity as an itemized 
statement in writing within two (2) years of the date of the alleged act, error 
or omission * * *.

2 The attorney who represented Shubert 
throughout these "negotiations" with WARM is not the same attorney who 
represents Shubert in this appeal.