Opinion ID: 6335089
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: On December 31, 2018, Still and Jameson were involved in an automobile accident in St. Louis County. According to Jameson, Still’s negligence caused the crash and his resulting injuries. On May 20, 2019, Jameson’s counsel sent a letter to Still’s insurer, MetLife, offering to settle the matter. The letter was titled “Offer to Settle Pursuant to RSMo § 408.040 and RSMo § 537.058” (hereinafter referred to as the “May 20 settlement offer”) and provided in relevant part: My firm is authorized to offer to settle this matter for the sum of onehundred and fifty thousand dollars ($150,000.00) or all available coverages, whichever is less, for a full release of any and all claims against Ms. Still. This offer to settle will remain open for ninety (90) days from the date of MetLife Insurance Company’s receipt of this offer. … The following must occur within ninety (90) days from the date MetLife receives this offer letter in order to constitute acceptance: 1) MetLife must complete, execute, and return the enclosed Insurance Company Affidavit …. 2) MetLife must agree to tender and deliver payment of one-hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($150,000.00) or all available coverages, whichever is less, … to [Jameson’s counsel at his law firm] …. 2 On June 21, 2019, MetLife responded with a letter offering to settle Jameson’s claim for $24,751 (hereinafter referred to as the “June 21 counteroffer”). Taking MetLife’s June 21 counteroffer as a rejection of his May 20 settlement offer, Jameson filed suit in late June 2019 against Still for his damages arising from the accident. After Jameson filed suit, MetLife proceeded to send Jameson several letters attempting to accept his May 20 settlement offer. On August 6, 2019, MetLife sent a letter offering to pay its policy limits of $100,000. Jameson did not respond. On August 14, 2019, MetLife sent another letter reiterating its August 6 offer to pay the $100,000 policy limits. The next day, on August 15, 2019, MetLife sent its final letter, which stated, “On behalf of Ms. Still we accept your demand to settle set out in your letter of May 20, 2019.” On August 20, 2019, Jameson responded, explaining that the May 20 settlement offer was no longer available because the June 21 counteroffer constituted a rejection that terminated MetLife’s ability to later accept the May 20 settlement offer. In her answer to Jameson’s petition for damages, Still pleaded the affirmative defense of settlement. Still alleged that MetLife’s counteroffer did not terminate the May 20 settlement offer and that MetLife’s August 15 letter constituted an acceptance, thereby settling Jameson’s injury claim. Still argued the statutes under which Jameson made the May 20 settlement offer – sections 408.040 and 537.058 – altered the common law rule that a counteroffer operates as a rejection that terminates an offer and required the settlement offer to remain open for 90 days despite any counteroffer or rejection that may occur during that time frame. Still renewed her argument in a motion for summary 3 judgment. The circuit court agreed with Still that a settlement agreement was reached despite MetLife’s June 21 counteroffer and granted summary judgment.