Court Opinion

ID: 9781452
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 16:38:25.527467+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:34:26.681110
License: Public Domain

MELTON, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in Division 1 of the majority opinion. However, because I believe that McReynolds’ insurance carrier fully accepted Krebs’ offer to settle her claims rather than making a counteroffer, I respectfully dissent from Division 2. In response to Krebs’ offer to settle for the bodily injury limit of McReynolds’ policy, McReynolds’ insurance carrier responded:
Our limits are $25,000/$50,000 and we agree to settle this matter for the $25,000 per person limit. Please call me in order to discuss how the lien(s) (Specifically, but not limited to the $273,435.35 lien from Grady Memorial Hospital) will be resolved as part of this settlement.
(Emphasis supplied.) McReynolds’ insurer stated an unequivocal agreement to pay policy limits. Then, it merely requested a phone call to discuss outstanding liens. Nothing more. Ostensibly, McRey-nolds’ insurance carrier was simply trying to determine to whom Krebs wished the check to be sent.
This is in sharp contrast to Frickey v. Jones, 280 Ga. 573 (630 SE2d 374) (2006), a case in which extrinsic evidence proved that an insurer issued a counteroffer to an initial offer to settle a claim. In Frickey, State Farm was presented with an offer to settle a claim for *855$100,000, and
State Farm responded by facsimile dated June 25, 2003 (with a copy sent by certified mail), stating its willingness to tender $100,000 as full settlement of all claims, “upon receipt of the fully executed release enclosed. Obviously, payment is complicated by what appears to be a Grady Hospital lien as well as potential liens by your client’s health carrier. Please advise me of the status of these liens.”
In order to make the determination of whether this response was an acceptance or counteroffer, we had to turn to additional correspondence between the parties. In doing so, we noted that “the circumstances surrounding the making of the contract [of settlement], such as correspondence and discussions, are relevant in deciding if there was a mutual assent to an agreement, and courts are free to consider such extrinsic evidence.” Id. at 575. Specifically, in order to find that State Farm had issued a counteroffer, we relied on subsequent correspondence from State Farm which explicitly indicated that “ ‘State Farm offered to tender the policy limits of $100,000 to [the plaintiff] in June 2003 if [the plaintiff was] able to resolve the Grady Hospital lien as well as potential liens by [the plaintiff’s] health carriers.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) Id. We emphasized that we were relying on State Farm’s own characterization of its settlement response which clearly indicated that State Farm considered resolution of outstanding liens a condition precedent to a binding settlement. We further emphasized that “[w]e do not suggest, however, that the mere request for confirmation that no liens exist renders an “acceptance a counteroffer which rejects the plaintiff’s offer.” Id. at 576, n. 2.
Frickey is wholly distinguishable from the present matter. Unlike Frickey, there is no additional extrinsic evidence which alters the nature of McReynolds’ insurance carrier’s unequivocal statement that “we agree to settle this matter for the $25,000 per person limit.” There is no requirement that other liens be resolved first in the settlement acceptance, and there is no subsequent correspondence which indicates that any such additional condition was required or expected. To the contrary, the letter here gives an unequivocal acceptance and then a simple request for a phone call to discuss outstanding liens. The call is neither a mandatory requirement (the request is prefaced by “please” rather than “you must”) nor a condition precedent to payment. As contemplated in Frickey, it is merely a request for information, not a counteroffer. Accordingly, there was an offer and acceptance of a settlement in this case, and the resulting contract should be enforced. See, e.g., Herring v. Dunning, 213 Ga. App. 695 (446 SE2d 199) (1994).
*856Decided march 23, 2012
Reconsideration denied April 11, 2012.
Carlock, Copeland & Stair, Cheryl H. Shaw, David F. Root, for appellant.
King & Spalding, Halli D. Cohn, Jennifer A. Simon, Lance A. Cooper, for appellee.
Robertson, Bodoh & Nasrallah, Mathew G. Nasrallah, amicus curiae.