The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment under Rule 20.01(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that the plaintiff’s claim had already been settled and therefore no genuine issue required a trial.
The court held that the defendant failed to establish on the evidentiary record that a binding settlement existed or that the alleged settlement was not unconscionable.
Outstanding factual issues included whether the parties had reached a meeting of the minds, whether a signed release was an essential condition, and whether the plaintiff had adequate information and advice when negotiating the settlement with the insurer’s adjuster.
Applying the unconscionability framework from Titus v. William F. Cooke Enterprises Inc., the court found that the record was insufficient to determine the fairness of the transaction or the balance of bargaining power.
The court concluded that genuine issues requiring a trial remained.
