ILNews

Attorneys cannot agree to settlements for clients

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The fact a party authorizes an attorney to enter settlement negotiations and knows the negotiations are occurring does not mean that the attorney has authority to approve a settlement, according to a ruling today by the Indiana Court of Appeals.

In Carol and David Bay v. Michael Pulliam and Cardinal Transportation, LLC, 49A05-0612-CV-704, the Court of Appeals reversed a Marion Superior Court decision that granted a motion to enforce settlement agreement in favor of Pulliam and Cardinal Transportation. At issue was whether a settlement between an attorney for the Bays and Pulliam's insurance company could be binding if the Bays did not agree to it.

Carol Bay was injured during a vehicle accident involving a Cardinal truck driven by Pulliam. The company and Pulliam were insured by Zurich Insurance, North America. The Bays hired the Nunn Law Office to represent them. The settlement negotiations were between the Nunn office and Zurich, which through correspondence disclosed various settlement demands and offers of settlement from Zurich. Attorney Ken Nunn signed each demand letter, and Zurich was told to contact Claims Manager Jeff Pryor to discuss settlement. On Jan. 3, 2006, Pryor communicated with Zurich advising, "Our client has accepted your offer in the amount of $16,700." A release form was then forwarded from Zurich to the Nunn office.

Carol Bay testified in court that on Jan. 2, 2006, she told Dean Arnold, another attorney in the Nunn office, that she needed to consult with her husband before accepting the settlement offer. When the Bays received the settlement offer on Jan. 17, 2006, they rejected it in writing by noting the rejection of the settlement in two separate locations.

The Bays appealed the motion to enforce settlement agreement, arguing that the "attorney for the Bays" did not have actual or apparent authority to make the settlement agreement. They conceded the law office could enter into settlement negotiations and also that the Bays knew of such negotiations, but not that Nunn's office could agree to any settlement. The Court of Appeals agreed with the Bays argument, stating there was no evidence that Carol Bay told Arnold to accept the Zurich offer.

Pulliam maintained that Arnold had authority to enter the binding agreement per the conversation between himself and Bay on Jan. 2, in which she said she wanted to "settle the case." That is not evidence that she accepted the offer or gave Arnold authority to do so, the court ruled.

Senior Judge Sullivan wrote in the opinion, "The law is clear that retention of an attorney by a client does not constitute implied authority to settle a claim nor does it constitute a manifestation to third parties that the attorney has apparent authority to do so in an out-of-court proceeding."

Citing Gravens v. Auto-Owners Ind. Co., 666 N.E. 2d 964 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), the court wrote, an attorney may not settle a claim without the client's consent.

In this case, Zurich assumed the Nunn office had the authority to approve the settlement, when it in fact did not, the court ruled. The acceptance of the settlement by the claims manager in the Nunn office was not binding upon the Bays. The Court of Appeals reversed the order of the Marion Superior Court and remanded for further proceedings.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT