Opinion ID: 32180
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Was there an agreement to litigate coverage following settlement?

Text: 15 A mutual agreement between President, Wausau, and Genesis to litigate their respective liabilities among themselves after settling the Baker litigation would preclude the application of the volunteer doctrine. See McLean, 157 So. at 362. Accord McDaniel Bros. Constr. Co., 175 So.2d at 605; Presley, 116 So.2d at 416. Genesis contends that its reservation of rights letter, combined with Wausau's internal e-mails, indicate the presence of an agreement. 16 The district court concluded that the settlement with Baker took place in lieu of a legal determination of the parties' respective obligations under their policies. The court premised its decision upon the legal rule that a payment under protest or accompanied by a unilateral reservation of rights will not escape the application of the volunteer doctrine. See Rowe v. Union Central Life Ins. Co., 194 Miss. 328, 12 So.2d 431, 433 (1943); Horne v. Time Warner Operations, Inc., 119 F.Supp.2d 624, 629 (S.D.Miss.1999). 17 A review of the record, however, reveals that the appellants have raised a fact issue as to whether Genesis's reservation of rights was indeed unilateral or whether Wausau had agreed with President and Genesis to preserve the coverage issue for resolution at a later date. On March 5, 2001, before money changed hands in the Baker settlement, Genesis's attorney sent counsel for Wausau a letter which states: 18 In furtherance of our telephone conversation last week, all parties to the discussions on settlement (Bob Sheriff on behalf of Wausau, Maria Johnson on behalf of the President, and me on behalf of Genesis) agreed that amounts contributed toward settlement of the Edith Baker suit against the President and its driver would be contributed without prejudice to the rights of any party to deny coverage and obligation to pay, and to seek recovery from other contributing parties. Our Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed in federal court is consistent with this agreement. 19 As you know, an agreement of settlement has now been reached at $400,000.... As noted above, all payments are without prejudice to the rights, claims and defenses of the respective payors. 20 Wausau did not respond to the letter. Thus the letter itself does not constitute conclusory evidence of an agreement between the parties. See Sweet Home Water & Sewer Assoc. v. Lexington Estates, Ltd., 613 So.2d 864, 871 (Miss.1993)(holding that a valid contract requires acceptance by the offeree); Palmer v. Security Life Ins. Co. of Am., 189 F.Supp.2d 584, 589 (S.D.Miss.2001)(listing the six requirements of a valid contract, including mutual assent). The letter does, however, relate the existence of an oral agreement. Oral agreements are recognized and enforceable in Mississippi. Murphree v. W.W. Transportation, 797 So.2d 268, 273 (Miss. Ct.App.2001). 21 President and Genesis supplied additional evidence of an oral agreement in the form of an email exchange on March 2, 2001, between Robert Sheriff (referred to in the letter from Genesis as Bob Sheriff), and fellow Wausau colleague, William Carroll. 22 Carroll: If they [Genesis] make an agreement to settle, are they not stuck with a voluntary agreement? What gives them the right to come back after the fact, wouldn't they have to do it up front unless we agreed to some kind of funding agreement? 23 Sheriff: We have Reserved our Rights as to coverage and Genesis has Reserved their Rights as to coverage. 24 Sheriff's response to Carroll indicates that an agreement with Genesis that each party would reserve their rights to subsequently litigate the coverage question had occurred or was a fait accompli. The email exchange and letter from Genesis to Wausau constitute probative evidence in support of the contention that the parties were of one mind regarding the preservation of the coverage issue in the face of the Baker settlement. See In re Estate of Davis, 832 So.2d 534, 537 (Miss.Ct.App.2001)(holding that meeting of the minds and consideration between competent parties are the requisite ingredients of a valid and binding agreement). Sheriff's denial of such an agreement in his deposition is insufficient to justify the district court's conclusion on summary judgment that one did not exist. 25 The presence or absence of an agreement is a question of fact to be resolved by the fact-finder. Ham Marine, Inc. v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 72 F.3d 454, 458 (5th Cir.1995); Hunt v. Coker, 741 So.2d 1011, 1015 (Miss.Ct.App.1999). Thus, we decline to determine on appeal whether the parties had an oral agreement to litigate the coverage issue following settlement and remand the issue to the district court for trial. But see Nat'l Surety Corp. v. Western Fire & Indemnity Co., 318 F.2d 379, 385-86 (5th Cir.1963)(applying Texas law, but citing no cases, and holding that where two insurance companies, in their mutual best interest, split the cost of settling a case, they had implicitly agreed to subsequently determine their respective obligations, thus barring the application of the volunteer doctrine). 26