## Facts

- Kyle Dale was injured in an automobile collision involving Viktoria Schaub and sued Schaub for negligence and his UM carrier, State Farm, for UM benefits.
- Schaub had \$100,000 in bodily-injury liability coverage; Dale’s UM limits were \$10,000.
- Dale’s attorney intended to serve proposals for settlement (PFS) seeking policy limits and instructed a paralegal to send one to each insurer for its policy limits.
- The paralegal mistakenly drafted and served a PFS to Schaub for \$10,000 (matching the UM limit) rather than Schaub’s \$100,000 liability limit.
- Schaub immediately accepted the \$10,000 PFS and tendered a \$10,000 check.
- On the next business day, Dale’s attorney discovered the error and moved to withdraw the PFS, supported by documentation and a paralegal affidavit admitting the drafting mistake.
- Dale argued the \$10,000 figure was an obvious clerical error given medical bills exceeding \$58,000 and prior offers exceeding \$10,000.
- Dale sought reconsideration with additional affidavits stating Dale had not authorized a \$10,000 settlement and counsel had not recommended or intended it.

## Issues

1. Whether a settlement formed by acceptance of a PFS should be set aside or the PFS withdrawn due to a unilateral clerical mistake that was obvious and promptly raised.
2. Whether the settlement was unenforceable because counsel lacked clear and unequivocal authority from Dale to settle for \$10,000.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the orders denying the motion to withdraw and denying reconsideration, and remanded.
- The court held the trial court erred by enforcing the accepted PFS despite evidence of a unilateral, obvious clerical mistake promptly brought to the court’s attention.
- The court also held the settlement was not binding because there was no clear client authorization to settle for the erroneous amount.

## Legal Principles

- A proposal for settlement, though authorized by procedural rule, functions as a contractual offer; if accepted, it generally forms a settlement subject to ordinary contract defenses.
- A settlement may be rescinded for unilateral mistake when the mistake is material, not the result of inexcusable lack of due care, is apparent under the circumstances, and rescission would not be inequitable due to detrimental reliance.
- An attorney must have clear and unequivocal authority from the client to enter a settlement; absent actual authority, the agreement is unenforceable against the client.
- When a client presents competent evidence disputing counsel’s settlement authority, the court must address the dispute rather than enforce the settlement solely because the writing appears clear on its face.

## Conclusion

The court reversed enforcement of a \$10,000 accepted proposal for settlement because the amount resulted from a prompt, obvious clerical mistake and because the plaintiff did not give clear and unequivocal authority to settle for that erroneous figure.


Dale v. Schaub, 301 So. 3d 1000 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2020)