Brooks et al v. The Standard Fire Insurance Company

Filing 39

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to enforce settlement omitting lienholder as a payee [Doc. #36] is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs shall have until December 30, 2014, to file a stipulation for dismissal of this matter. Failure to comply will result in the dismissal of this action with prejudice. ( Dismissal Paper(s) due by 12/30/2014.) Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 12/15/2014. (KMS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
OSCAR BROOKS and AUGUSTINE
BROOKS,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:14-CV-182 (CEJ)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on plaintiffs’ motion to enforce settlement.
Defendant has filed a response to the motion and the issues are fully briefed.
I.

Background

On June 7, 2009, plaintiffs Oscar and Augustine Brooks suffered a fire at their
home and filed a claim with their insurer, defendant Standard Fire Insurance Company.
In November 2009, defendant paid $17,900 in settlement for the partial fire loss.
Plaintiffs allege that they suffered a total loss and filed this action to recover the full
amount of coverage. At mediation on October 7, 2014, defendant agreed to pay
plaintiffs an additional $50,000 and the parties signed a Mediated Settlement
Agreement. A release agreement executed on October 29th provided that defendant
would issue a check payable to plaintiffs and their counsel. On November 4th, counsel
for defendant notified counsel for plaintiffs that Statewide Public Adjusting, Inc.,
(Statewide) had a lien on the claim and would be included on the settlement check, to
be issued as soon as plaintiffs executed an amended release agreement. Plaintiffs
refused to execute the amended release agreement. They filed this motion seeking

enforcement of the original agreement, arguing that the proposed addition of the
lienholder to the check is a breach of that agreement.
II.

Discussion

A settlement agreement is a species of contract and, therefore, a meeting of the
minds is required. B-Mall Co. v. Williamson, 977 S.W.2d 74, 77-78 (Mo. Ct. App.
1998) (citing Emerick v. Mutual Ben. Life Ins. Co., 756 S.W.2d 513, 518 (Mo. 1988)
(en banc)). In determining whether a meeting of minds has occurred, the court looks
at the objective manifestations of the parties. Id. at 78 (citing McDaniel v. Park Place
Care Ctr., Inc., 918 S.W.2d 820, 827 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996)). A meeting of the minds
is necessarily implied by the existence of a contract.

Id. (citing L.B. v. State

Committee of Psychologists, 912 S.W.2d 611, 617 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995)). Here, the
parties executed two agreements - the Mediated Settlement Agreement and a release
agreement – evidencing their intent to settle the dispute for $50,000.

Because

plaintiffs move to enforce that agreement, they cannot argue that no agreement was
reached. Thus, the issue is whether inclusion of the lienholder as a payee on the check
invalidates the parties’ agreement.
It is undisputed that all parties were aware of the lien at the time the Mediated
Settlement Agreement was signed.1 It is also undisputed that the agreement provided
that plaintiffs would pay all liens.

Thus, including Statewide as a payee on the

settlement check does not breach the parties’ agreement. See B-Mall Co., 977 S.W.2d
at 79 (including lienholder as payee in settlement check did not breach settlement

1

Statewide Public Adjusters was included as a payee in the 1009 checks
defendant issued to plaintiffs.
-2-

agreement); Gaunt v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 808 S.W.2d 401, 408 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991)
(same); Croker v. Consol. Serv. Car Co., Inc., 365 S.W.2d 524, 531 (Mo. 1963)
(inclusion of lienholders as payees proper to protect defendant against the rights of the
lienholders).
Plaintiffs suggest that it is improper to include Statewide as a payee because
they have a defense against Statewide’s lien. Plaintiffs bear the burden to clear that
lien and defendant is not obliged to expose itself to liability to Statewide while plaintiffs
attempt to do so.
The court finds that the parties have an enforceable agreement to settle their
dispute and that the inclusion of lienholder Statewide as a payee on the settlement
check does not invalidate the agreement. The court further finds that defendant is not
obligated to tender payment to plaintiffs until they execute the amended release
reflecting Statewide as a payee. Plaintiffs’ request for attorneys fees for bringing the
motion will be denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to enforce settlement omitting
lienholder as a payee [Doc. #36] is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs shall have until December 30, 2014,
to file a stipulation for dismissal of this matter. Failure to comply will result in the
dismissal of this action with prejudice.

___________________________
CAROL E. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 15th day of December, 2014.
-3-