The letter included a standard release and a $10,000 check made payable to Mr. Marin, his attorney, and JMH.

In the letter, Infinity explained that it included JMH on the check because JMH appeared to have a lien for the medical services provided by JMH to Mr. Marin. Infinity, however, offered to reissue the check if the lien had been resolved.

The attorney apparently did not respond to Infinity's letter or cash the check.

Mr. Marin subsequently retained a new attorney and, on April 7, 2014, Marin's newly-retained attorney notified Infinity in writing that he had been retained to represent Mr. Marin and demanded that Infinity tender its full policy limits. The letter stated:

It is my understanding that your insured has $10,000 in available liability coverage, which I am requesting that your company tender by delivering the settlement draft to my office by the close of business on April 28, 2014.

The demand letter also included medical records from JMH documenting Mr. Marin's treatment.

On April 25, 2014, Infinity responded by sending Mr. Marin's attorney a letter that specifically stated that Infinity "agree[d] to meet [Mr. Marin's] settlement demand." The letter also included a $10,000 check made payable to Mr. Marin, the attorney, and JMH; a release; and an open invitation to submit modifications to the settlement draft. The letter again explained that JMH had been listed as a payee on the settlement check because JMH appeared to have a lien for the medical services it had provided to Mr. Marin. However, Infinity offered to reissue the check if the lien had been resolved.

Because Infinity had included JMH as a joint payee on the settlement check, Mr. Marin's attorney treated the payment as a counteroffer and rejected the settlement payment on April 30, 2014. Infinity and Mr. Marin's attorney exchanged letters discussing whether a settlement had been reached and, thereafter, Infinity twice reissued the check without including JMH as a co-payee. Mr. Marin's attorney rejected both payments.

Following Mr. Marin's attorney's rejection of the checks issued by Infinity, Infinity asked a trial court to enforce the settlement.

The trial court ruled in favor of Infinity. It found that:

(1) The inclusion of JMH as a joint payee on the settlement check was not an essential term of the settlement agreement because Infinity had not conditioned settlement on Mr. Marin's agreement to that term, given that Infinity, in its letter tendering the check, had invited Mr. Marin to propose modifications to the settlement draft; and

(2) The inclusion of JMH was not an objectionable and unusual term because there was uncertainty as to whether JMH possessed a lien for the medical services rendered to Mr. Marin, which Infinity was required to protect under Florida law.

Mr. Marin appealed.

The Appellate Court's Decision

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order granting Infinity's motion to enforce the settlement.

In its decision, the appellate court ruled that Mr. Marin's April 7, 2014 letter constituted an offer to settle his bodily injury claim against Mr. Blanco. It then agreed with the trial court that Infinity's April 25, 2014 response constituted an acceptance, forming a valid settlement agreement, and not a counteroffer.

The appellate court explained that Mr. Marin's April 7, 2014 letter contained only two essential terms:

(1) Infinity must tender the $10,000 bodily injury liability limit in the form of a settlement draft; and

(2) Infinity must do so by April 28, 2014.

The appellate court pointed out that Infinity timely responded to Mr. Marin's letter on April 25, 2014, agreeing to meet all of Mr. Marin's settlement demands; thus, it said, Infinity had accepted Mr. Marin's offer to settle.

The appellate court was not persuaded by Mr. Marin's contention that Infinity's inclusion of JMH on the settlement check added a new essential term to the agreement that converted Infinity's purported acceptance into a counteroffer. The appellate court reiterated that Mr. Marin's demand letter only provided two essential terms to reach a settlement, "both of which were met when Infinity tendered the full policy limits by April 28, 2014." The demand letter did not state who should be included on the settlement check, the appellate court noted. Rather, it only stated that Infinity must submit a "settlement draft" by April 28, 2014.

The appellate court added that, at the time of Mr. Marin's settlement offer and Infinity's acceptance of the offer, it appeared that JMH may have had an actionable lien for its services based on the medical documents submitted to Infinity. This presented a dilemma for Infinity, the appellate court observed, because Florida law provided that JMH was entitled to a lien for all reasonable charges for Mr. Marin's care but Mr. Marin had made no attempt to affirmatively show that all of the costs had been paid or satisfied as required by the law.

The appellate court ruled that, despite the uncertainty this created, Infinity had "definitively agreed to the settlement terms and issued a check for the policy limits" payable to both Mr. Marin and JMH with an invitation to Mr. Marin to provide information that JMH's lien had been resolved. Thus, the appellate court concluded, if JMH was not going to pursue a lien against Mr. Marin for its services, all Mr. Marin needed to do to remove JMH from the settlement check was to notify Infinity of that fact, as Infinity had invited Mr. Marin and his attorney to do.

The case is Marin v. Infinity Auto Ins. Co., No. 3D17-891 (Fla. Ct.App. Feb. 21, 2018). Attorneys involved include: DeMahy Labrador & Drake, P.A., and Orlando D. Cabeza, Frank L. Labrador, and Angel Castillo, Jr., for appellant. White & Case, LLP, and Raoul G. Cantero and Christopher W. Swift-Perez, for appellee Infinity Auto Insurance Company.