BRYANT v. SEMINOLE PRECAST MANUFACTURING INC BRIDGEFIELD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY (2021)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Rodney BRYANT, Appellant, v. SEMINOLE PRECAST MANUFACTURING, INC./BRIDGEFIELD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellees.

No. 1D19-4291

Decided: July 15, 2021

Nicholas A. Shannin of Shannin Law Firm, P.A., Orlando; David E. Mallen of Dan Newlin & Partners, Orlando, for Appellant. Steven A. McKillop of Jones, Hurley & Hand, P.A., Orlando, for Appellees.

Affirmed. See Bonagura v. Home Depot, 991 So. 2d 902, 905 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (holding that “the parties reached a valid, binding oral settlement agreement” even though the claimant refused to sign paperwork sent by the employer/servicing agent after mediation that included “material matters that were not discussed and agreed upon during the oral settlement talks”); Soto v. C-Worthy Corp., 206 So. 3d 117, 119 (Fla 1st DCA 2016) (explaining that “[b]ecause indemnification had not been negotiated, its inclusion in the ‘necessary paperwork’ exceeded the scope of the written agreement, such that it was in effect a new offer which Claimant declined to accept” and thus Claimant's rejection of the new offer did not “nullify the previous agreement under the terms as set out in the valid, binding settlement agreement”).

Per Curiam.

Rowe, C.J., and Roberts and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network