Background
Tamara Carr sued USAA General Indemnity Company for uninsured-motorist benefits after a collision with an uninsured driver. Following an unsuccessful second mediation, Carr and USAA agreed to keep their final offers—$275,000 and $250,000, respectively—open for one week. On the final day, Carr’s attorney texted USAA’s attorney that Carr would not reduce her $275,000 demand and asked whether USAA could obtain authority “so we can wrap this up.” USAA responded before the close of business that the parties had a $275,000 settlement in exchange for dismissal and release of all claims, confidentiality, non-disparagement, and splitting the mediation costs.
After the holiday weekend, Carr’s attorney informed USAA that Carr no longer wished to settle and wanted to proceed to trial. USAA moved to enforce the agreement. Following an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court found the settlement enforceable, and Carr appealed, challenging both the finding of mutual assent and the mediator’s testimony.
The Court’s Holding
The Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed. Applying abuse-of-discretion review and deferring to the circuit court’s factual and credibility determinations, the court held that a preponderance of the evidence supported a meeting of the minds. Testimony showed that the only material term still disputed after mediation was the payment amount, that Carr’s $275,000 offer remained open, and that she did not revoke it before USAA accepted it.
The court also relied on the attorneys’ communications and on evidence that confidentiality, non-disparagement, release, dismissal, and mediation-cost terms had already been addressed and were not subjects of continuing disagreement. Although Carr testified that she never authorized or accepted a $275,000 settlement, the circuit court could credit the contrary evidence, and litigants generally are bound by their attorneys’ authorized actions. Because the settlement issue was dispositive, the court declined to address Carr’s separate challenge to the mediator’s testimony.
Key Takeaways
- A settlement is enforceable when the party seeking enforcement proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the parties reached a meeting of the minds.
- An attorney’s communications and conduct may establish a client’s assent, and an attorney is presumed to have authority to speak for and bind the client.
- Barnes, C.J., Carlton, P.J., Westbrooks, McDonald, Lawrence, Emfinger, Weddle, and Lassitter St. Pé, JJ., concurred; Wilson, P.J., concurred only in part and in the result without a separate written opinion.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that a settlement may become binding through counsel’s communications before formal release documents are signed. When ancillary provisions have already been resolved and only the payment amount remains open, an unrevoked demand followed by timely acceptance can create an enforceable agreement.
It also highlights the deference appellate courts give trial judges who resolve conflicting testimony about whether the parties settled. A client’s later denial of assent may not defeat a settlement supported by counsel’s testimony, contemporaneous communications, and other evidence of authority and mutual agreement.