CORE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES SOUTHEAST, INC. v. AMERISURE INSURANCE COMPANY, 6:13-cv-723-Orl-31KRS. (2015)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20150518773
Visitors: 29
Filed: May 15, 2015
Latest Update: May 15, 2015
Summary: ORDER GREGORY A. PRESNELL , District Judge . Based on consideration of: Defendant Amerisure Insruance Company's ("Amerisure") Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement (Doc. 171) ("Motion"), 1 Core Construction Services, Southeast, Inc.'s ("Core") Response in Opposition (Doc. 172), Amerisure's Reply in Support of the Motion (Doc. 175), and an evidentiary hearing held May 15, 2015, the Court finds as follows: The attorney's fees provision in 16.2 of the proposed settlement agreement dis
Summary: ORDER GREGORY A. PRESNELL , District Judge . Based on consideration of: Defendant Amerisure Insruance Company's ("Amerisure") Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement (Doc. 171) ("Motion"), 1 Core Construction Services, Southeast, Inc.'s ("Core") Response in Opposition (Doc. 172), Amerisure's Reply in Support of the Motion (Doc. 175), and an evidentiary hearing held May 15, 2015, the Court finds as follows: The attorney's fees provision in 16.2 of the proposed settlement agreement disc..
More
ORDER
GREGORY A. PRESNELL, District Judge.
Based on consideration of: Defendant Amerisure Insruance Company's ("Amerisure") Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement (Doc. 171) ("Motion"),1 Core Construction Services, Southeast, Inc.'s ("Core") Response in Opposition (Doc. 172), Amerisure's Reply in Support of the Motion (Doc. 175), and an evidentiary hearing held May 15, 2015, the Court finds as follows:
The attorney's fees provision in § 16.2 of the proposed settlement agreement discussed through e-mail correspondence between the parties' counsel (Docs. 171-1-171-6) was an essential element of the agreement. There was no meeting of the minds nor explicit acceptance of an offer including that term. Thus, the settlement agreement is not enforceable.
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that Amerisure's Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement (Doc. 171) is DENIED, the Order dismissing the case (Doc. 170) is VACATED, and the case will be set for trial on May 26, 2015.
DONE and ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The Motion also included a request that the Court extend its deadline to reopen the case to address settlement disputes. The Court's January 28, 2015 Order dismissing the case without prejudice included a sixty (60) day retention of jurisdiction to address settlement disputes or other matters. (Doc. 170). The sixty days expired March 29, 2015, and the Motion was timely filed on March 24, 2015.
Source: Leagle
