Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

A settlement agreement was reached at a mediation attended by persons who seemingly believed they represented all interested parties. One of those was an attorney representing both H&M and Liberty Mutual, who agreed to a settlement that compromised the interests of both the employer and the insurer. H&M had not authorized Liberty Mutual or the attorney to settle and later refused to agree to the settlement. The terms of the mediation required that each party be represented by a person with settlement authority. Although the terms of the mediation included a requirement that the parties sign any settlement in writing before they would be bound, the district court concluded that subsequent events could waive this provision. After a hearing on P's motion to enforce the settlement agreement, the court certified two questions to this Court.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.