Court Opinion

ID: 9735209
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:05:25.939585+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:55.981795
License: Public Domain

McEWEN, President Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
¶ 1 Since the author of the opinion of the majority has provided, in his usual fashion, a careful analysis and perceptive expression of view, I hasten to join in the rulings of the majority that this appeal is properly before this Court, and that the settlement agreement should be enforced. As noted by the majority, the issue of the enforceability of an alleged settlement agreement must be determined by reference to well-settled principles of contract law. The verdict in the instant case was returned by the jury on September 15, 1999, and two days thereafter, on September 17, 1999, Allstate’s adjuster offered to settle the matter for $3500. This offer was immediately .accepted by counsel for appellants. As there was consideration for the offer - appellants did not file post-trial motions or an appeal from any judgment subsequently entered on the verdict — I would vacate the order, of the trial court and direct that judgment be entered for appellants in the amount of the settlement offer plus legal interest, based on a finding that an enforceable legal contract was entered into by counsel for appellants and the adjuster. Nonetheless, however apparent the basis for sanctions, on the basis of the instant record, I would not impose the sanctions provided by Philadelphia Civil Rule 229.1.