What Does It Take to Enforce a Settlement Agreement?
A Georgia driver filed a personal injury lawsuit against another auto driver, seeking damages for personal injuries he sustained when the at-fault driver aka the defendant hit him with his truck. The injured victim aka the plaintiff appealed from the trial court’s order granting the defendant’s motion to enforce a settlement agreement, arguing that no enforceable settlement agreement existed because the parties didn’t have a “meeting of the minds” on all of the essential terms of an offer to settle.
The plaintiff alleged that he’d sustained personal injuries on September 11, 2022, when the defendant negligently struck the plaintiff with his motor vehicle. The defendant filed his Answer, and on January 18, 2023, counsel for the plaintiff sent a demand letter to the defendant’s auto insurer (“Progressive”), providing as follows:
The plaintiff hereby tenders his demand for settlement of the above-referenced matter in the amount of $25,000.00 for the injuries and damages he sustained as a result of the negligence of your insured, the defendant.
This demand is made pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 51-12-14 for unliquidated damages in a tort action and, if you fail to pay such amount within 30 days from the mailing of this notice, the plaintiff shall be entitled to receive interest on the claimed sum if, upon trial of the case from which the claim is made, the judgment is for an amount not less than claimed.
This offer terminates on the 17th day of February, 2023, at 5:00 p.m., 30 days from today. Acceptance of this demand must be received in writing with full payment received in hand in my office by February 17th. Any deviation or delay in this acceptance will be considered an automatic rejection of this demand.
On February 8, 2023, Progressive sent the plaintiff’s counsel a letter stating that it accepted the his $25,000 offer of settlement, that payment in the amount of $25,000 was enclosed, and that the release and stipulation of dismissal would be processed by defense counsel. Counsel for Progressive sent a release to the plaintiff’s counsel a week later. The defendant subsequently filed a motion to enforce settlement, which the trial court granted.
On appeal, the plaintiff contended that no enforceable settlement agreement existed because the parties did not agree to all of the essential terms listed in O.C.G.A. § 9-11-67.1. Presiding Judge Brian M. Rickman wrote in his opinion for the panel that pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-67.1 (2021):
(a) Prior to the filing of an answer, any offer to settle a tort claim for personal injury, bodily injury, or death arising from the use of a motor vehicle and prepared by or with the assistance of an attorney on behalf of a claimant or claimants shall be in writing and:
(1) Shall contain the following material terms:
(A) The time period within which such offer must be accepted, which shall not be less than 30 days from receipt of the offer;
(B) Amount of monetary payment;
(C) The party or parties the claimant or claimants will release if such offer is accepted;
(D) For any type of release, whether the release is full or limited and an itemization of what the claimant or claimants will provide to each releasee; and
(E) The claims to be released.
Judge Rickman concluded that the plaintiff’s offer didn’t satisfy the requirements of § 9-11-67.1(a)(1) because the offer:
- Didn’t specify the party or parties he’d release if his offer was accepted;
- Didn’t say if any release would be full or limited;
- Failed to provide an itemization of what he would provide to each releasee; or
- Didn’t identify the claims to be released.
Subsection (c) of that statute states that “nothing in this Code section is intended to prohibit parties from reaching a settlement agreement in a manner and under terms otherwise agreeable to both the offeror and recipient of the offer.”
In 2017, the Supreme Court of Georgia considered virtually identical statutory language in the 2013 version of O.C.G.A. § 9-11-67.1, which applied to pre-suit offers to settle claims for personal injury arising from the use of a motor vehicle and prepared by or with the assistance of an attorney of behalf of a claimant. In that case, the Georgia Supreme Court explained:
Given the mandatory language of subsection (a) specifying the terms that “shall” be included in a Pre-Suit Offer, the most natural reading of this provision is that the statute does not preclude a Pre-Suit Offer from requiring acceptance of terms in addition to those set forth in subsection (a). And the use of the word “manner” in subsection (c) indicates that not only are additional “terms” permissible, but a claimant may ask the recipient of a Pre-Suit Offer to do something to accept the offer beyond stating the recipient’s acceptance in writing.
Judge Rickman stressed that O.C.G.A. § 9-11-67.1 applies to all offers made prior to the filing of an answer to settle claims for personal injury arising from the use of a motor vehicle, prepared by or with the assistance of an attorney on behalf of a claimant. Here, because the plaintiff’s offer was governed by O.C.G.A. § 9-11-67.1 but didn’t satisfy the requirements of O.C.G.A. § 9-11-67.1(a)(1), it wasn’t a valid offer capable of being accepted. As a result, there was no enforceable settlement agreement between the parties, and the trial court erred by granting the defendant’s motion to enforce settlement. The judgment was reversed. Lester v. Hampton, 2025 Ga. App. LEXIS 474, 2025 LX 401189 (Ga. App. October 23, 2025).
Contact us
Contact an experienced Atlanta personal injury lawyer Atlanta residents trust every day. We’ve worked with auto accidents victims all across the state. We offer FREE consultations to all prospective clients. Contact an Atlanta personal injury attorney at Tobin Injury Law 24 hours a day, seven days a week by calling 404-JUSTICE (404-587-8423) or using our online contact form.