Cheverie v. Geisser, 4D00-485.
Decision Date | 14 March 2001 |
Docket Number | No. 4D00-485.,4D00-485. |
Citation | 783 So.2d 1115 |
Parties | Solanje CHEVERIE, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Carroll Cheverie, Jr., Deceased, Appellant, v. Marshall GEISSER, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Larry Moskowitz of Larry Moskowitz, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Richard A. Sherman and Rosemary B. Wilder of Law Offices of Richard A. Sherman, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, and John E. Donahoe of Donahoe, Pecaro & Vollender, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
In this wrongful death action arising out of an automobile accident, Solanje Cheverie, the plaintiff below, appeals the order dismissing her complaint. The trial court dismissed the complaint upon determining that the parties had reached a binding settlement agreement before plaintiff filed suit. We reverse, because the evidence fails to support a finding that there was a meeting of the minds between the parties as to every essential element.
Plaintiffs husband, Carroll Cheverie, died on November 7, 1998 as a result of injuries he sustained when the defendant, Marshall Geisser, collided with his automobile on July 28, 1998.
After several months of written communication between plaintiffs counsel and the defendant's insurance adjuster (Allstate), plaintiff brought this wrongful death action. The defendant filed a counterclaim for declaratory relief, asserting that the parties had reached a settlement agreement for the defendant's insurance policy limits during their pre-suit negotiations. The plaintiff contended that there was no valid settlement agreement because there was no meeting of the minds on two essential terms: (1) indemnification language in the release proposed by Allstate; and (2) production of the policy limits affidavit.
Before trial on the wrongful death claim, the parties agreed to waive a jury trial on the counterclaim and have the court decide the settlement issue. The court ruled that there was an enforceable settlement agreement and dismissed the complaint. The court's finding of a settlement was based upon a series of letters between the defendant's insurance adjuster and the plaintiff's attorney. Below is a chronology of their correspondence:
At the bench trial on the counterclaim, the court heard testimony from the defendant's adjuster and plaintiff's counsel. The adjuster conceded that Allstate did not provide the policy information requested by plaintiff's counsel until several weeks after suit was filed. She further acknowledged that she was aware that the plaintiffs attorney had rejected the indemnification language in the release and had refused to accept the release as presented. She also testified that the release was never signed or returned to her.
Plaintiff's counsel explained that it was his standard practice to obtain the policy information prior to accepting any settlement and that, to the best of his knowledge, such was the standard practice of most personal injury attorneys in Broward County. He also explained that his objections to the indemnification language in the proposed release were based on the extensive medical bills and potential exposure of his client to a third party claim.
Following trial, the court concluded that the March 18th letter from Cheverie's attorney was an offer to settle, and the March 24th letter from Allstate, mailed without a release and enclosing a check for the policy limits, was an acceptance of that offer. The court determined...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Krauser v. Biohorizons, Inc.
...v. City of Miami, 469 So.2d 1384, 1385 (Fla.1985); Hanson v. Maxfield, 23 So.3d 736 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2009); Cheverie v. Geisser, 783 So.2d 1115, 1118 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2001). “Where the contractual language is clear, courts may not indulge in construction or modification and the express term......
-
Conseal Int'l Inc. v. Neogen Corp.
...two sets of external signs.’ " Bland v. Freightliner LLC , 206 F. Supp. 2d 1202, 1207 (M.D. Fla. 2002) (quoting Cheverie v. Geisser , 783 So.2d 1115, 1119 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) ). While it is undisputed that a valid agreement existed between Plaintiff and Preserve , the central question befor......
-
PNC Bank, N.A. v. Rolsafe Int'l, LLC (In re Rolsafe Int'l, LLC)
...As explained above, Florida's choice of law rules result in the application of Florida law. 15.See, e.g., In re Cheverie v. Geisser, 783 So.2d 1115 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (holding that objection to proposed indemnification language contained in the release precluded finding that settlement had......
-
Bland v. Freightliner LLC
...not "depend on the agreement of two minds in one intention, but on the agreement of two sets of external signs." Cheverie v. Geisser, 783 So.2d 1115, 1119 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). The Blands have sufficiently alleged a valid contract existed when they purchased the Freightliner Vehicle for $91,......