Court of Appeals Rejects Challenge from Estate of Injured Worker

Claimant's estate in this matter argued that settlement of claimant's partial commutation case had been reached before claimant died.  The agency granted summary judgment to the employer and in Estate of Ed Albaugh v. UPS Freight, No. 20-0070 (Iowa App. April 14, 2021), the court of appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment to defendant. 

Claimant had been injured at work and was found to be permanently and totally disabled by the agency in 2014.  Claimant petitioned for partial commutation of benefits in March 2017. In June, defendant's attorney indicated that his client would agree to partial commutation if claimant agreed to an MSA, with a reversionary interest to Gallagher Bassett/UPS.  Plaintiff's attorney responded he was willing to consider the idea. By November, no further progress had been reached, but shortly before the May 1, 2018 hearing, defendant's attorney indicated that UPS would agree to commutation and run a new MSA.  She indicated that if this was acceptable, he would prepare the settlement documents.  Two days later, claimant's counsel indicated he would call his client.  Defendant's counsel provided partial commutation figures, but they were based on an incorrect age.  Following this, there was a dispute concerning the interest rate (1.24 versus 1.5).  On April 30, claimant's counsel indicated a hearing would not be needed and defendant's counsel told the agency a hearing would not be needed.  Three days later, Albaugh and his wife were killed in a motorcycle collision.

In January of 2019, claimant's son signed a revised petition for partial commutation and submitted this to UPS, who refused to sign the papers.  The commissioner refused to provide relied and the district court granted UPS' motion for summary judgment, finding that there was no settlement agreement.  The COA agreed, finding there was no mutual assent to the terms of the agreement.  In this case, because there was still a dispute about the interest issue and claimant had not yet agreed to the settlement, there was no offer and acceptance.  Cancellation of the hearing was not enough to demonstrate the parties had reached an enforceable agreement.  Since there was no meeting of the minds, there was no mutual assent to the terms of the settlement agreement and thus no enforceable contract.  Summary judgment against claimant was affirmed by the court.