Murphey v. Mid-Century Insurance Company
United States District Court for the District of Kansas
2014 WL 2619073 (2014)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
A vehicle driven by Beverly Murphey (plaintiff) was struck by a vehicle driven by Laura Wiggs (defendant). Kevin Lash, an adjuster for Mid-Century Insurance Company (Mid-Century) (defendant), was assigned to handle Murphey’s insurance claim. Lash communicated with Murphey’s attorney via email on several occasions to negotiate a settlement. Murphey’s attorney initially proposed an amount of over $366,000. Mid-Century’s lowest settlement offer was $116,000. In one email, Lash offered $221,000 to settle all claims. Murphey’s attorney accepted the $221,000 offer by email. Subsequently, Lash responded that the offer was a typographical error and that he had intended to offer $121,000. Murphey’s attorney and Lash exchanged further emails expressing their differing views as to whether a valid agreement was formed by Lash’s $221,000 offer. Murphey filed suit against Mid-Century and Wiggs in Kansas state court, seeking to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement and alleging breach of contract. Murphey sought a declaratory judgment that a binding and enforceable settlement agreement existed. The case was removed to federal district court. Mid-Century asserted a counterclaim for rescission and denied the presence of an enforceable agreement. Murphey moved for summary judgment as to her breach-of-contract claim and moved for a judgment on the pleadings as to Mid-Century’s rescission claim.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Robinson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.