Johnette Martin v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Amanda Z. Martin, and Gregory F. Martin

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: February 4, 2026
• Docket: 2025-CA-0231
• Status: Published
• Author: Judge Daniel L. Dysart

Opinion

JOHNETTE MARTIN * NO. 2025-CA-0231

VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL STATE FARM FIRE AND * CASUALTY COMPANY, FOURTH CIRCUIT AMANDA Z. MARTIN, AND * GREGORY F. MARTIN STATE OF LOUISIANA *******

APPEAL FROM 25TH JDC, PARISH OF PLAQUEMINES NO. 65-718, DIVISION “B” Honorable Michael D. Clement ****** Judge Daniel L. Dysart ****** (Court composed of Judge Daniel L. Dysart, Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano, Judge Nakisha Ervin-Knott)

LOBRANO, J., DISSENTS AND ASSIGNS REASONS

Johnette L. Martin ATTORNEY AT LAW 10022 Glen View Avenue P.O. Box 4064 Baton Rouge, LA 70809

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

Marianne S. Pensa TINA L. SUGGS & ASSOCIATES 3850 North Causeway Boulevard 1700 Lakeway II Metairie, LA 70002

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE Leo J. Palazzo PALAZZO LAW FIRM 732 Behrman Highway, Suites F&G Gretna, LA 70056

COUNSEL FOR INTEVENOR/APPELLEE

AFFIRMED FEBRUARY 4, 2026 DLD In this personal injury case, the plaintiff, Johnette Martin, appeals the district NEK court’s judgment granting a motion to enforce settlement agreement filed by the

defendants, Amanda Z. Martin, Gregory F. Martin, and State Farm Fire and

Casualty Company (“State Farm”). For the following reasons, we affirm the

judgment of the district court.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Ms. Martin filed suit for injuries she allegedly sustained when she tripped

and fell in her family’s kitchen on December 25, 2018. She named as defendants

her mother, Amanda Z. Martin (since deceased), her brother, Gregory F. Martin,

and their insurer, State Farm.

In February 2023, Ms. Martin retained the Palazzo Law Firm to represent

her in the litigation. In April 2024, her counsel sent a document entitled

“Acknowledgement of Settlement Authority” (“Acknowledgment”), which Ms.

Martin signed on April 9, 2024. The Acknowledgment stated that Ms. Martin

granted her attorneys “full authority to negotiate settlement” and “authorize[d]

1 [them] to accept the minimum gross sum of $100,000 as full and final settlement”

of all claims arising from her fall.

On May 29, 2024, State Farm extended a settlement offer of $100,000.00 to

the Palazzo Law Firm. State Farm’s counsel requested written confirmation that

Ms. Martin agreed to settle the claim for that amount. In an emailed response, her

counsel replied: “Confirmed.”

On June 7, 2024, State Farm transmitted settlement checks totaling

$100,000.00 and forwarded the Receipt and Release Agreement and Motion to

Dismiss for Ms. Martin’s signature.1 However, she refused to sign the settlement

documents and rejected the funds. Thereafter, Ms. Martin continued to pursue her

medical claims against State Farm, including attempting to remedy unfavorable

medical testimony.

State Farm filed a motion to enforce settlement, which the district court

granted on January 5, 2025. The district court determined that Ms. Martin had

granted her attorneys express authority to accept the settlement by signing the

Acknowledgment, and therefore, her attorney’s email to State Farm, dated May 29,

2024, constituted a valid and binding compromise. It is from this ruling that Ms.

Martin appeals.

DISCUSSION

1StateFarm issued one check payable to Appellant and her attorneys in the amount of $95,825.12 and a second check payable to Blue Cross Blue Shield, to satisfy its medical lien, in the amount of $4,174.88.

2 The central issue in this appeal is whether State Farm established through

the acknowledgment and attorney email exchange that Ms. Martin clearly and

expressly consented to the alleged settlement agreement.

A trial court’s ruling on a motion to enforce settlement is a factual

determination that is reviewed under the manifest error/clearly wrong standard of

review. Feingerts v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 12-1598, p. 4 (La. App. 4 Cir.

6/26/13), 117 So.3d 1294, 1297 (citations omitted). “This is because the existence

or validity of a compromise depends on a finding of the parties’ intent, an

inherently factual finding.” Id.

“A compromise is a contract whereby the parties, through concessions made

by one or more of them, settle a dispute or an uncertainty concerning an obligation

or other legal relationship.” La. C.C. art. 3071. “Compromises are favored in the

law and the burden of proving the invalidity of such an agreement is on the party

attacking it.” Elder v. Elder & Elder Enterprises, Ltd., 06-0703, p. 4 (La. App. 4

Cir. 1/11/07), 948 So.2d 348, 351 (citations omitted).

For a compromise to be valid, it must “be made in writing or recited in open

court . . .” La. C.C. art. 3072. Electronic writings and electronic signatures satisfy

the writing requirement. See La. R.S. 9:2607. An exchange of emails can

constitute a compromise agreement. See Reed v. 7631 Burthe St., LLC, 17-0476, p.

3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/28/07), 234 So.3d 1201, 1204. “When two instruments, read

together, contain a written compromise agreement outlining the obligations of each

party and evidencing the acquiescence therein by both parties, they are an

3 enforceable compromise agreement under La. Civ.Code Art. 3071.” DeSoto v.

DeSoto, 96-1079, p. 4 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/29/97), 694 So.2d 1043, 1045 (citing

Felder v. Georgia. Pac Corp., 405 So.2d 521, 524 (La. 1981). Accordingly, when

Ms. Martin’s former counsel responded “confirmed” via email back to State

Farm’s offer to settle for $100,000.00, there was a valid compromise on its face.

In Louisiana, it is well settled that a party’s counsel of record does not have

authority to settle a client’s claims without his client’s clear and express consent.

See La. C.C. art. 2997(5); Coppage v. Transdev Servs., Inc., 20-0419, p. 6 (La.

App. 4 Cir. 3/19/21), 320 So.3d 1206, 1211 (citations omitted). In the instant case,

Ms. Martin provided her attorneys with express authority to settle this matter for

$100,000.00 when she signed the Acknowledgement of Settlement Authority,

specifically authorizing them to negotiate with State Farm and to accept a sum of

$100,000.00 to settle her claims against the defendants in this matter.

Accordingly, the Palazzo Law Firm had the express authority to settle Ms.

Martin’s case for $100,000.00.

We also note that when the words of a contract are clear and explicit and

lead to no absurd consequences, no further interpretation may be made in search of

the parties’ intent. See La. C.C. art. 2046. In the instant case, the words used in

the communications between the parties were clear and explicit and they lead to no

absurd consequences. Therefore, no further interpretation may be made in search

of the parties’ intent. Accordingly, any extrinsic evidence would be inadmissible

to explain the clear and express terms of the compromise agreement.

4 Although Ms. Martin asserts that this case is just like the situation in McRae

v. Ellis, 632 So. 2d 841 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1994), wherein the Fourth Circuit found

that the plaintiff’s attorneys did not enter into a valid compromise because the

plaintiff had not signed the settlement documents, McRae is distinguishable from

the instant case. In McRae, the plaintiff had signed a document authorizing her

attorneys to settle her case for $15,000.00. McRae, 632 So. 2d at 842. Her

attorneys obtained a settlement offer from Allstate for $20,000.00, but the plaintiff

refused to sign the closing documents after the fact. Id. The McRae court found

that there had been no formal, written offer and acceptance to indicate that a

compromise had been reached. Specifically, the McRae court noted that Allstate

had sent a “draft” purporting to be a final settlement, and the draft constituted the

formal, written offer. McRae, 632 So. 2d at 844. However, neither the plaintiff nor

her attorneys signed that draft; thus, there was no written acceptance of the offer,

and no compromise. Id. Unlike in the McRae case, here, we have a formal,

written offer (State Farm’s email outlining the terms of the settlement) and

acceptance (Mr. Savoy’s “Confirmed” response email). Thus, the requirements for

a compromise are clearly met.

CONCLUSION

The record before this Court clearly establishes a valid compromise that was

confirmed in writing with Ms. Martin’s express authority to settle her case for

$100,000.00. Accordingly, the trial court’s granting of the defendants’ motion to

enforce settlement agreement is affirmed.

AFFIRMED