Young v. Cooler, 3400.
| Decision Date | 05 November 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 3400.,3400. |
| Citation | 347 S.C. 362,555 S.E.2d 410 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Eric L. YOUNG, Sr., Individually, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Mabellean Young and Eric L. Young, Jr., Respondents, v. Harvey L. COOLER and South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company as Underinsured-Motorist-Coverage Insurer, Defendants, of whom South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company as Underinsured-Motorist-Coverage Insurer is Appellant. |
George H. O'Kelley, Jr., of Beaufort; and Robert J. Thomas, of Rogers, Townsend & Thomas, of Columbia, for appellant.
Dragana Davidovic, of Beaufort, for respondents.
South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company (Farm Bureau), as the underinsured motorist carrier, appeals a circuit court order enforcing an alleged settlement agreement between itself and Eric L. Young, Sr. and Eric L. Young, Jr. (the Youngs). We reverse.
This case arose from a car accident between Harvey L. Cooler and the Youngs. Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate) provided primary liability coverage for Cooler, and Farm Bureau provided the Youngs' underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage.
Cooler's counsel indicated to Farm Bureau in written correspondence and answers to interrogatories that Cooler's applicable policy limits were $15,000/$30,000. The Youngs' attorney also informed Farm Bureau's attorney that Cooler's applicable policy limits were $15,000/$30,000, and that the case could be settled for the Youngs' policy limits because Cooler's liability limits were significantly lower than the Youngs' damages.
On the day before trial, Farm Bureau's attorney informed the Youngs' attorney that Farm Bureau would pay $7,000 for Eric Young, Jr.'s claim and $8,000 for Eric Young, Sr.'s claim ($15,000 total). His letter stated "this would be paid regardless of the outcome of your settlement negotiations or trial" and further stated that he would order the drafts and prepare a UIM release. No evidence in the record indicates that the Youngs' counsel accepted any perceived offer made by Farm Bureau.
Later that afternoon, Cooler's attorney discovered he was mistaken and that Allstate's coverage limits were $50,000/ $100,000 instead of $15,000/$30,000. He informed Farm Bureau's attorney of the mistake, who then contacted the Youngs' attorney and verbally withdrew the $15,000 offer. On the morning of trial, he sent a fax indicating that Farm Bureau withdrew its offer because he was "misinformed and did not have the correct facts" regarding Allstate's coverage limits.
The case proceeded to trial resulting in a jury verdict of $20,000 for Eric Young, Sr. and $15,000 for Eric Young, Jr. The trial judge subsequently granted the Youngs' motion to enforce the alleged settlement between themselves and Farm Bureau. This appeal followed.
Farm Bureau argues the trial judge erred in enforcing the alleged settlement agreement. We agree.
An agreement between counsel affecting the proceedings in an action is not binding unless a consent order or written stipulation is signed by counsel and entered in the record or the agreement is made in open court and noted for the record. Rule 43(k), SCRCP. This rule applies to settlement agreements. Ashfort Corp. v. Palmetto Constr. Group, Inc., 318 S.C. 492, 494, 458 S.E.2d 533, 534 (1995). In Ashfort, the court held that the purpose of rules like Rule 43(k) is to prevent disputes concerning the existence and terms of agreements and to relieve the court of the necessity of determining such disputes. Id. at 495, 458 S.E.2d at 535 (quoting 83 C.J.S. Stipulations § 4 (1953)); see also Reed v. Associated Investments of Edisto Island, Inc., 339 S.C. 148, 152, 528 S.E.2d 94, 96 (Ct.App.2000)
.
The requirements of Rule 43(k) were not met here. The record contains no evidence of a consent order, written stipulation, or agreement made in open court and noted on the record.
The Youngs argue that the letter from Farm Bureau's attorney confirmed the settlement and how it would be executed. We disagree. The letter is more in the nature of an offer or preliminary settlement negotiations than an agreement. In it, Farm Bureau's attorney said that he had been able to convince his client to pay $7,000 for Eric Young, Sr. and $8,000 for Eric Young, Jr. Furthermore, he indicated he would "go ahead and order the drafts and prepare a UIM release." This language indicates that the letter was not intended to be the final written documentation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Mayer v. MS Bailey & Son
-
Brenco v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPT. OF TRANSP.
...mistake where the parties have made a common mistake of fact causing each to do what neither intended. Young v. Cooler, 347 S.C. 362, 366, 555 S.E.2d 410, 412-13 (Ct.App.2001). At trial, Brenco maintained two primary grounds for mistake: (1) the loss of direct access to Highway 501 from the......
-
Brenco v. Sourth Carolina Department of Transportation, No. 3926 (NC 1/24/2005)
...mistake where the parties have made a common mistake of fact causing each to do what neither intended. Young v. Cooler, 347 S.C. 362, 366, 555 S.E.2d 410, 412-13 (Ct. App. 2001). At trial, Brenco maintained two primary grounds for mistake: (1) the loss of direct access to Highway 501 from t......