In an action to enforce settlement, on a motion for summary judgment, movant included two documents naming different sums. Each party claimed that a different document constituted a settlement offer, movant the first and non-movant the second. Non-movant’s response to the motion included a third letter showing acceptance of the second letter, raising a genuine dispute as to which of the first two letters constituted the offer of settlement, which was material to the claim. The state of the record therefore precluded summary judgment, circuit court erred in granting the motion, and Court of Appeals reverses and remands.
NORMAN LAWS, Appellant vs. PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District – SD36707
Being sued? Contact our office at 816-524-4949 or you can visit our website at hoorfarlaw.com to schedule an appointment.