Sanford v. Nationwide General Insurance Company

• Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
• Decided: February 2, 2024
• Docket: 4:22-cv-01255
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION ALIX K. SANFORD PLAINTIFF

v. CASE NO. 4:22-CV-01255-BSM NATIONWIDE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY DEFENDANT ORDER Nationwide General Insurance Company’s motion to enforce its settlement agreement with Alix Sanford [Doc. No. 8] is granted. Sanford is suing her insurer, Nationwide, for failure to pay a property damage claim. Compl. at 11, Doc. No. 2. Counsel for Nationwide deposed Sanford, who, along with her lawyer, appeared remotely. Dec. of Regina Young ¶ 4, Doc. No. 8-1 at 1. During a break in the deposition, Nationwide offered to settle the claim and, after consulting with Sanford, plaintiff’s counsel accepted the offer, and the deposition was halted. Id. ¶¶ 5–6. Post- deposition correspondence between the parties’ lawyers confirmed the settlement. Id. ¶¶

7–11. Later, however, plaintiff’s counsel notified defense counsel that Sanford was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s less than a month after the deposition and was not competent to authorize him to settle the claim. Resp. to Mot. to Enforce Settlement Agreement 1, Doc. No. 10. Plaintiff’s counsel then withdrew from representing plaintiff. Doc. Nos. 12 & 13. The issue presented is whether the parties entered into an enforceable contract, which

requires: (1) competent parties; (2) subject matter; (3) legal consideration; (4) a mutual agreement; and (5) mutual obligation. Terra Land Servs., Inc. v. McIntyre, 572 S.W.3d 424, 432 (Ark. Ct. App. 2019); see Visiting Nurse Ass’n, St. Louis v. VNAHealthcare, Inc., 347 F.3d 1052, 1053 (8th Cir. 2003) (Arkansas substantive law applies in diversity cases). The second, third, and fifth elements are undisputedly met. See Mot. to Enforce Settlement

Agreement 1, Doc. No. 8; Resp. to Mot. to Enforce Settlement Agreement 1. In dispute is whether Sanford: (1) was competent to enter into the settlement agreement, and (4) agreed to enter the agreement. Sanford has failed to prove that she was not competent to authorize her lawyer to

accept Nationwide’s settlement offer. See Lillian H. Ashton Trust v. Caraway, 370 S.W.3d 278, 282 (Ark. Ct. App. 2009) (person asserting incompetency has the burden of proving it). Although Sanford has submitted a document showing that she was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s less than one month after accepting Nationwide’s settlement offer, see Doc. No. 10-1, this, alone, does not prove that she was unable to consent to settlement on the day she

sat for her deposition. A hearing was scheduled so Sanford could present evidence regarding her competency, but it was cancelled immediately before it was scheduled to begin when it was announced that Sanford planned to present no additional evidence. See Doc. No. 15. Finally, in supplemental briefing, Sanford’s recently retained counsel contends that Sanford’s first lawyer did not have authority to accept Nationwide’s settlement offer. See

Suppl. Br. in Opp’n to Mot. to Enforce Settlement Agreement 3–5, Doc. No. 17. Although counsel’s effort is appreciated, this argument carries little weight because it contradicts the representations that Sanford has made for more than two months. See Resp. to Mot. to Enforce Settlement Agreement 1; see also Life Investors Ins. Co. of Am. v. Corrado, 804 F.3d 2 908, 914 (8th Cir. 2015) (giving little weight to arguments made according to the exigencies of the moment that are inconsistent with earlier arguments). For all these reasons, a valid contract was entered and the parties are ordered to take all necessary actions to finalize the agreed upon settlement. IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of February, 2024.

ASAvonr~ x Wr GMo UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE