Sumerel v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

Facts

On remand, Goodyear’s (defendant) lead attorney, Thomasch, met with the plaintiffs’ lead attorney, Maywhort. The two parties were tasked with determining the proper accrual dates for the prejudgment interest and to calculate such interest. Thomasch proposed certain accrual dates to Maywhort. Goodyear’s co-counsel, Brooks also met with the plaintiffs’ co-counsel, Gray, and the two agreed on the applicable accrual dates. They had trouble with their calculations on the prejudgment interest. Brooks advised Gray that his calculations showed that the amount Goodyear owed was approximately $2.7 million. Gray responded that his figure was appeared to be larger by approximately six figures. Brooks speculated that the discrepancy may have resulted from a failure to include one of the plaintiffs in their calculations. Believing he understood the source of the discrepancy, Brooks sent Gray several charts via email on November 2, 2006 that reflected calculations as to the total amounts due to each plaintiff. Maywhort noticed that Goodyear’s calculations conflicted with the plaintiffs’ calculations. In fact, Goodyear had overstated the damages due by more than $550,000. Brooks had assessed Goodyear’s liability as being 100%, when in fact it was judged to be 36% and 48% at fault. The plaintiffs, however, had taken the overstatement calculation to be an offer to enter into a settlement agreement, which they accepted. When Goodyear refused to follow the purported settlement agreement, the plaintiffs brought suit.