William Dalton Smith Jr. appeals the trial court’s order enforcing a settlement agreement with Roxanne Hall, the defendant in Smith’s personal injury action. Smith argues that there was no meeting of the minds because in response to his offer to settle, Hall submitted a counteroffer, not an acceptance. We find that Hall’s response was an acceptance of Smith’s offer to settle, and therefore affirm the trial court. On July 7, 2010, Smith’s attorney sent a letter to Hall’s attorney submitting a demand for settlement in the amount of $25,000, the limits of Hall’s insurance policy. The letter provided that this settlement demand is based upon representations that the limits of liability/bodily injury coverage available to Hall are 24,000/50,000/25,000 and based upon representations that there is no other available insurance to address the allegations of this action. If it is later determined that this is incorrect, this settlement offer will be void. The letter stated that the offer terminated at 4 p.m. on July 14, 2010, and provided that “any deviation or delay in this acceptance will be considered an automatic rejection of this demand.” Smith’s counsel extended the deadline for Hall to respond, and Hall’s counsel wrote two letters seeking clarification of whether the offer to settle included a release of the claims against Hall and her insurer. Smith did not respond in writing. Nonetheless, by the extended deadline, Hall’s counsel wrote to Smith’s counsel that “we hereby accept your demand for settlement. . . .” Hall’s counsel included a check for $25,000 with the letter. The attorney also included three documents for Smith’s or his attorney’s signature: a release and indemnity agreement; an affidavit of no liens; and an attorney’s certificate of no liens. The letter explained that
it is our understanding that there are no other parties or available insurance policies from which your client could collect any potential judgment for his damages. In light of this fact, the release in this matter is general as it relates to our client and her insurer. If there is other insurance available, that we are not aware of, we could discuss the terms of a release and consider a Limited Liability Release which would permit Mr. Smith to pursue his claims to the extent there is other insurance available. Otherwise we will assume that the release is acceptable and that you and your client will execute all of the settlement documents prior to negotiating the settlement check. Emphasis in original. About a week later, Smith’s counsel returned the check and documents to Hall’s counsel on the ground that they were not an acceptance of the July 7 demand but instead were a rejection and counteroffer.
