Court Opinion

ID: 9655924
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:25:38.083194+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:32:08.394182
License: Public Domain

WARNER, J.,
concurring specially.
I do not consider the use of separate attorneys for the PIP and UM claims as creating in itself a latent ambiguity with the proposal submitted by attorney Gara-gozlo, which clearly and unequivocally addressed all claims against Nationwide in that lawsuit. A copy of that proposal was sent to Wicker Smith. However, within the thirty day acceptance period for that proposal, Wicker Smith filed its own proposal for settlement addressed to the PIP claim only. Therefore, from the extrinsic facts, an ambiguity arose as to exactly which claims were covered in the first proposal.