8 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 827a
Insurance — Settlement agreement — Where parties entered into a settlement agreement and reached a meeting of minds as to essential terms of agreement, policy limits demanded were tendered by insurer in timely fashion, only dispute arose from claimants’ objection to indemnification language in releases provided by insurer, but claimants’ counsel never gave insurer the opportunity to amend releases, summary judgment is entered in favor of insurer — Claimants are ordered to execute general release in form previously provided to and agreed to by claimants’ counsel
Reversed at 27 Fla. L. Weekly D2188a
THE HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST, for itself and on behalf of WILLIE BRADHAM, LILLIE BRADHAM, and CEDRICK FRASIER, Plaintiff, vs. LILA NICHOLS and CYNTHIA NICHOLS, Defendants. Circuit Court, 2nd Judicial Circuit in and for Leon County. Case No. 00-CA-2886. September 2, 2001. P. Kevin Davey, Judge. Counsel: Michael T. Callahan. Kathy J. Maus.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONFOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE coming before the Court on August 30, 2001, upon Plaintiff’s, THE HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST, for itself and on behalf of WILLIE BRADHAM, LILLIE BRADHAM and CEDRICK FRASIER, Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court, having reviewed the Motion, entertained argument of counsel and being otherwise advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED.
2. This Court finds that the pleadings, affidavits, and evidence of record demonstrate, as a matter of law, that:
a. The parties hereto entered into a settlement;
b. The parties reached a meeting of the minds as to the essential terms of the settlement agreement;
c. The policy limits demanded by the Nichols were tendered by The Hartford in a timely fashion;
d. The only dispute arose out of the Nichols’ counsel’s objection to the indemnification language contained in the release agreements provided by The Hartford, but he never gave The Hartford an opportunity to amend the releases.
3. The Defendants shall each execute a General Release in favor of Plaintiffs in the form of the release provided to Defendants’ counsel in its correspondence dated November 10, 2000, which was agreed to by Defendants’ Counsel.
4. This Court reserves jurisdiction to award to Plaintiffs taxable costs and attorney fees, as applicable.
* * *
