Lester v. Hampton, Georgia Court of Appeals

On November 18, 2025, the Georgia Court of Appeals issued the opinion below.

BOBLAW Commentary

Facts: The plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident case sent an offer to the defendant's insurer to settle the case for $25,000. Then the insurance company accepted the offer. Then the plaintiff stated that there WAS NO settlement and tried to get out of it. Then the trial court ordered that there WAS a settlement. Now the Court of Appeals is saying there was no settlement. Holding: The Court of Appeals reiterated the holding from Georgia Supreme Court case Grange Mut. Cas. Co. v. Woodard, 300 Ga. 848 (2017), that a pre-suit offer to settle MUST contain:

• The time period (at least 30 days)
• The amount
• The parties released
• The type of release
• The claims released OCGA 9-11-67.1. Because one or more of these items were missing from Lester's offer, it was not a valid offer and could not have been accepted by Hampton's insurer Progressive. So there was no settlement. Questions:

1. Why did the plaintiff NOT want there to be a settlement? He did make an offer to settle and the insurer tried to accept it – now he is arguing to the Court of Appeals that there was no settlement?
2. Does this have implications for other cases where we DO actually want to settle?

Opinion

Rickman, Presiding Judge. Keith Lester filed this personal injury suit against Freddie Hampton, seeking damages for injuries he allegedly sustained when Hampton hit Lester with his truck. Lester appeals from the trial court's order granting Hampton's motion to enforce a settlement agreement, arguing that no enforceable settlement agreement exists because the parties did not have a "meeting of the minds" on all of the essential terms of an offer to settle. For the reasons that follow, we reverse.

Standard of Review

When reviewing a trial court's order on a motion to enforce a settlement agreement, we apply a de novo standard of review and view the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Torres v. Elkin, 317 Ga. App. 135, 140 (2) (730 SE2d 518) (2012).

Background

The record shows that Lester filed the instant action against Hampton, alleging that Lester had sustained personal injuries on September 11, 2022, when Hampton negligently struck Lester with his motor vehicle. Hampton filed his answer on January 31, 2023. The Demand Letter On January 18, 2023, counsel for Lester sent a demand letter to Hampton's motor vehicle liability carrier, Progressive Mountain Insurance Company ("Progressive"), providing as follows:

Keith Lester 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, Freddie Hampton.

This demand is made pursuant to OCGA § 51-12-14 for unliquidated damages in a tort action and, if you fail to pay such amount within thirty (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., thirty 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. Progressive's Response On February 8, 2023, Progressive sent Lester's counsel a letter stating that:

• It accepted Lester's $25,000 offer of settlement
• Payment in the amount of $25,000 was enclosed
• The release and stipulation of dismissal would be processed by defense counsel Counsel for Progressive sent a release to Lester's counsel on February 15, 2023. Trial Court Ruling Hampton subsequently filed a motion to enforce settlement, which the trial court granted. Lester filed a motion for reconsideration, which the trial court denied. The trial court entered an amended order granting Hampton's motion, entering judgment for Hampton, and dismissing Lester's complaint. This appeal followed.

Analysis

On appeal, Lester contends that no enforceable settlement agreement exists because the parties did not agree to all of the essential terms listed in OCGA § 9-11-67.1. Statutory Requirements Pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-67.1 (2021), 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 shall contain the following material terms:

1. The time period within which such offer must be accepted (not less than 30 days from receipt)
2. Amount of monetary payment
3. The party or parties the claimant will release if accepted
4. Whether the release is full or limited, and an itemization of what the claimant will provide to each releasee
5. The claims to be released Lester's Offer Was Deficient Lester's offer did not:

• Specify the party or parties he would release
• State whether any release would be full or limited
• Provide an itemization of what he would provide to each releasee
• Identify the claims to be released Consequently, his offer did not satisfy the requirements of OCGA § 9-11-67.1 (a)(1). See Grange Mut. Cas. Co. v. Woodard, 300 Ga. 848, 855 (2)(b) (797 SE2d 814) (2017).

Hampton's Argument Rejected At oral argument, Hampton suggested that OCGA § 9-11-67.1 is inapplicable because Lester's offer referred to OCGA § 51-12-14, not OCGA § 9-11-67.1. But Lester's failure to refer to OCGA § 9-11-67.1 does not mean that OCGA § 9-11-67.1 does not apply. The statute 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. See Grange Mut. Cas. Co., 300 Ga. at 858 (2)(b).

Conclusion

Because Lester's offer was governed by OCGA § 9-11-67.1 but did not satisfy the requirements of OCGA § 9-11-67.1 (a)(1), it was not a valid offer capable of being accepted. Consequently, there is no enforceable settlement agreement between the parties, and the trial court erred by:

• Granting Hampton's motion to enforce settlement
• Entering judgment for Hampton
• Dismissing Lester's complaint Judgment reversed. Gobeil and Davis, JJ., concur.