Here’s an analysis of the case of William D. Lunn v. Continental Motors, Inc. (Oklahoma Supreme Court, not released for publication). You can read the text of the opinion by clicking here.
Case Summary
Background:
William D. Lunn, individually and as the representative of his deceased children’s estates, sued Continental Motors, Inc. (CMI) for wrongful death after a plane crash. CMI made an unapportioned settlement offer of $300,000 to all plaintiffs, which Lunn rejected. After a jury found for CMI and further appeals, CMI sought to recover attorney’s fees under Oklahoma’s “offer of judgment” statute (12 O.S. § 1101.1(A)), claiming their offer exceeded the judgment amount.
Legal Issue:
Does Oklahoma law allow a defendant to make a single, unapportioned offer of judgment to multiple plaintiffs, or must the offer be divided (“apportioned”) among them?
Court’s Reasoning
1. Statutory Interpretation:
The court closely examined the language of 12 O.S. § 1101.1(A). This statute allows a defendant to make a formal settlement offer to “any plaintiff” and, if rejected, potentially recover legal fees if the final judgment is less than the offer. The court pointed out that the statute uses singular language (“any plaintiff,” “each plaintiff”), suggesting offers must be individualized.
2. Policy and Precedent:
The court cited three prior Court of Civil Appeals (COCA) decisions holding unapportioned offers invalid (Haddock, Medlock, Schommer). These cases found that joint, lump-sum offers create confusion for both courts and plaintiffs:
- Plaintiffs can’t easily assess if a settlement is fair for their individual claims.
- Courts struggle to compare a single offer with multiple verdicts.
- Unapportioned offers risk unfairly shifting attorney’s fees among plaintiffs.
3. Practical Problems:
The court emphasized the need for clarity: If an offer isn’t split up, it’s unclear what amount should be compared to each plaintiff’s eventual judgment. This uncertainty undermines the statute’s purpose (encouraging settlements and discouraging unnecessary litigation).
4. Bright-Line Rule:
The court adopted a “bright-line” rule: In multi-plaintiff cases, an offer of judgment must be apportioned so each plaintiff knows the proposed amount for their claim.
Holding
- An unapportioned offer of judgment (a single dollar amount to all plaintiffs together) is invalid under Oklahoma law.
- Offers must state how much each plaintiff would receive.
- The district court was correct to deny CMI’s request for attorney’s fees based on an unapportioned offer.
Implications
- For lawyers: When making an offer of judgment in Oklahoma to multiple plaintiffs, always specify how much is allocated to each. Failure to do so means you can’t recover attorney’s fees if the offer is rejected and the final judgment is less.
- For plaintiffs: You have more protection against ambiguous settlement offers and can independently assess and accept offers.
- For courts: This rule simplifies post-trial comparisons and reduces disputes over settlements and fees.