BROADCASTS.com

b'

No Right to Change After Agreeing to a Settlement\\n\\nINSURER\'S INSTIGATION OF SETTLEMENT IS EVIDENCE OF GOOD FAITH\\nAfter parties to a suit resolved the suit by settlement one or more of \\nthe parties tried to renege on the agreement and appealed the trial \\ncourt\'s order to enforce the parties\' settlement agreement. The parties\'\\n settlement agreement required them to dismiss all claims, \\ncounterclaims, and crossclaims\\xa0 with prejudice.\\xa0 In Shorewood Forest \\nUtilities, Inc. v. Rex Properties, LLC and Don Blum, No. 22A-PL-2345, \\nCourt of Appeals of Indiana (August 11, 2023) the Court of Appeals \\nresolved the claims concerning the Settlement Agreement.\\n\\nFACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY\\n\\nShorewood is a nonprofit corporation that provides sewer service to more\\n than 1000 residents in Porter County. Rex Properties is a property \\ndeveloper, and Blum is the sole managing member of Rex Properties. In \\n2017, Shorewood and Rex Properties entered into an agreement for \\nShorewood to expand into a new Rex Properties development and service \\nthe homes there according to certain terms, rates, and fees. Not long \\nthereafter, Shorewood concluded that its agreement with Rex Properties \\nwas not enforceable, and Shorewood declined to participate in the \\nproject.\\n\\nBy mid-2019, the only claim remaining in the instant cause was Rex \\nProperties\' approximately sixteen-million-dollar counterclaim against \\nShorewood for breach of contract. Shorewood sought to amend its \\ncomplaint to allege claims of fraud, fraud in the inducement, unjust \\nenrichment, and criminal deception against Rex Properties. In March \\n2020, the trial court permitted Shorewood\'s requested amendment.\\n\\nIn the spring and summer of 2020, the parties attempted to settle out of\\n court. On June 8, counsel for Shorewood sent counsel for Rex Properties\\n an email stating that Shorewood\'s insurance carrier, Stratford \\nInsurance, had agreed to pay Rex Properties $950,000 for Shorewood and \\nRex Properties to settle and dismiss all claims, counterclaims, and \\ncrossclaims in this cause.\\n\\nMr. Blum approved the settlement with the terms set forth in the offer \\nemail.\\n\\nOver the next several weeks, the parties\' attorneys worked on drafting a\\n Settlement Agreement.\\xa0 Counsel drafted an agreement but Shorewood \\nrefused to sign it. \\n\\nTHE ISSUES\\n\\nThe central issue in this appeal is whether the email exchange between \\nthe parties on June 8 represented the offer and acceptance of an \\nenforceable settlement agreement. The trial court concluded that the \\nparties\' June 8 email exchange created an enforceable settlement \\nagreement.\\n\\nShorewood had made an offer, Rex Properties accepted the offer, there \\nwas more than ample consideration between them and Stratford Insurance, and all parties had a meeting of the minds over definite and certain essential terms.\\n\\nThe trial court\'s denial of Rex Properties\' motion for judgment on the \\npleadings and its motion for summary judgment resulted in a settlement \\nagreement between Shorewood and Rex Properties, and their settlement \\nrendered the trial court\'s prior judgments moot.\\n\\nThe trial court\\u2019s judgment was affirmed.\\n\\nZALMA OPINION\\n\\nCourts invariably prefer settlement agreements. Insurers, like \\nStratford, prefer settlements. In this case Stratford put up almost $1 \\nmillion to settle, the parties agreed by e-mail and an agreement to \\nmemorialize the agreement with a formalized agreement. The contract was \\nmade by the e-mail exchange of offer, acceptance and consideration. The \\nformalized agreement was not necessary and the good work of the insurer \\nresulted in a solution to an extensive case and protected its insured.\\n\\n(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.