Speckel v. Perkins

364 N.W.2d 890 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Speckel was injured when a car driven by Perkins collided with a truck that Speckel was a passenger in. In December 1983, Speckel's attorney, Eckman, demanded the insurance policy limits of $50,000 to settle the case. In January 1984, Perkins’ attorney, Wheat, wrote to Eckman informing him that he would send the offer to the carrier but he thought the demand was overstated. No more letters were exchanged until a week before the scheduled trial. Wheat sent a letter to Eckman in which he acknowledged the $50,000 claim was overstated and then offered $50,000 in settlement of your claim. Wheat’s secretary signed the letter and Wheat never saw it. The letter was in fact dictated at $15,000, but the secretary erroneously typed $50,000. Eckman immediately accepted the offer with a letter. Wheat contacted the court before he got the acceptance letter and requested a continuance of the trial because his expert witness was ill and when he called to discuss the matter with Eckman, he then discovered the error and informed Eckman of the mistake. Wheat sent a letter detailing the mistake and that he thought the mistake was obvious and that he had not reviewed nor signed the letter. Eckman responded with attorney diatribe that he was shocked. Eckman pursued collection from Wheat and with the carrier and finally brought a motion to compel performance. Neither attorney made any attempt to have the matter reinstated on the trial calendar. The trial court granted the motion to compel performance finding the letter to be an unequivocal offer and that the statement that the case was not a limits case was nothing but Wheat’s personal belief. The court also reasoned that Wheat made no effort to reinstate the trial.