Settlement Stands, Even Though Comp Insurer Named on Check

Adam Sounders agreed to settle his personal-injury lawsuit in opposition to a trucking firm for $500,000, however pulled out of the deal when he obtained a settlement examine that included a employees’ compensation lien holder as a payee.

A Florida jury rewarded that call with a $1.9 million web judgment in opposition to Suarez Trucking Co. That was sufficient to reimburse Guarantee Insurance Co. for the $522,607 in employees’ comp advantages it paid with a lot left over for Sounders and his attorneys.

The Florida Supreme Court, nonetheless, quashed that verdict on Thursday by ruling that Sounders had no proper to withdraw his settlement supply within the first place. The excessive court docket stated in a 5-1 determination that the settlement turned enforceable when Suarez Trucking filed its acceptance with the court docket, though the payout examine named Guarantee Insurance Co. as a payee.

“This notice of acceptance created a binding settlement contract by unequivocally and fully assenting to the terms of the offer,” the opinion says. “It is hard to imagine a form of acceptance that could be more clear or more effective.”

The determination overturned a ruling by the 2nd District Court of Appeals and the Hillsborough County trial court docket.

Sounders was injured on Feb. 20, 2014 when his automobile collided with a dump truck owned by Suarez. He filed a lawsuit, after which provided to settle the case if Suarez paid $500,000 inside 10 days.

Suarez accepted the deal and despatched a examine that listed Sounders, his attorneys’ legislation agency and Guarantee as payees. The employees’ compensation service had paid almost $500,000 for medical remedy and indemnity advantages as Sounders recovered.

Sounders refused to simply accept the examine, saying he didn’t intend for the employees’ compensation service to be a fellow payee. The trial court docket denied a movement by Suarez to implement the settlement settlement.

A Hillsborough County jury awarded damages of $1,960,000 and located Suarez Trucking answerable for 96% of that quantity. The firm appealed, however the Second District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court docket. Suarez took the case to the state’s prime court docket.

The Supreme Court majority stated the Second District’s ruling conflicted with a choice in an analogous case determined by the 4th District Court of Appeals in 2012, titled Cirrus Design Corp. v. Sasso. In that case, the appellate panel dominated {that a} contract was fashioned as quickly because the tortfeasor within the case accepted the settlement supply.

The Supreme Court stated the 4th DCA’s determination accurately interprets Florida contract legislation. But the excessive court docket didn’t determine whether or not Suarez had breached the settlement contract by making the take a look at to the lienholder.

“Those issues should be resolved on remand, uninfluenced by the erroneous view of contract formation adopted by the Second District,” the bulk opinion says.

Justice Charles Canaday would have gone additional. He stated in a concurring opinion that contracts are fashioned inside the confines of state legislation. Florida statute Section 440.39 entitles an insurance coverage service to a professional rata share of an worker’s restoration in a third-party motion. Once a lien is filed, a plaintiff has no proper to the proceeds of the award till the trial court docket determines what portion of the fee ought to go to the employees’ compensation service, he stated.

“When the contract is understood in light of these existing relationships and obligations, as is required by the well-established rule of incorporation, it is hard to see how Suarez Trucking’s tender of the settlement check with the workers’ compensation carrier named as a payee could be a breach—much less a material breach—of the settlement agreement,” Canady’s concurring opinion says.

Justice Jorge Labarga dissented. He stated the failure of the events in Sounders case to have a “meeting of minds” rendered the settlement settlement unenforceable.

Topics
Carriers
Florida