The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking enforcement of an alleged settlement arising from a motor vehicle personal injury action.
The plaintiff argued that the parties had reached agreement on damages and prejudgment interest, leaving only costs to be assessed.
The defendant argued that its Rule 49 offer was indivisible and required acceptance of all terms, including a fixed amount for costs, which the plaintiff did not accept.
The court held that a binding settlement requires agreement on all material terms and that the plaintiff’s attempt to accept only part of the offer constituted a counter‑offer.
Because the parties never agreed on the material term of costs and disbursements, there was no meeting of the minds and no enforceable settlement.
