Sharpnack, S.J.
Ana Martins appeals the trial court’s order granting Richard and Diana Hill’s Motion to Enforce Unconditionally Accepted Qualified Settlement Offer. We reverse and remand.
…
On August 15, 2012, Ana Martins rode her bike on or near a paved bike path in Crown Point, Indiana. The Hills were riding a tandem bike on the same path, and they and Martins collided. The Hills and Martins each claimed to have suffered injuries from the collision.
…
On September 4, 2018, the Hills filed a Motion to Enforce Unconditionally Accepted Qualified Settlement Offer, citing recent communication among the attorneys. Martins, through Attorney Shoultz, filed a response. We discuss the circumstances of the purported settlement offer and purported acceptance in more detail below.
…
A close review of the plain language of the parties’ communications reveals that there was no mutual assent and no contract was formed. Attorney Shoultz’s letter discussed the Hills’ claims and Martins’ defenses but omitted any mention of Martins’ counterclaim. In addition, the letter emphasized the release and dismissal of the Hills’ claims against Martins, with no mention of the release and dismissal of her counterclaim.
…
…we must conclude that the offer failed to meet the requirements for a qualified settlement offer.
Although the offer did not meet the requirements of Indiana Code section 34-50-1-3, it was an offer that, if accepted, would have created an enforceable contract for the Hills to settle and dismiss all claims against Martins in exchange for $100,000. In any event, the Hills’ response did not qualify as an acceptance. “It is well settled that in order for an offer and an acceptance to constitute a contract, the acceptance must meet and correspond with the offer in every respect.” I.C.C. Protective Coatings, Inc. v. A.E. Staley Mfg. Co., 695 N.E.2d 1030, 1034 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998), trans. denied. An acceptance which varies the terms of the offer is considered a rejection and operates as a counteroffer, which may be then accepted by the original offeror. Id. at 1035.
In this case, the Hills’ response to Martins’ offer was in substance a counteroffer because it added an additional term: “as long as everyone dismisses and everything is over.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 71. In addition, the Hills’ response indicated negotiations were not at an end, because it asked Martins to “please confirm” that everyone was “dismiss[ing].” Id.
Based on the plain language of the parties’ communications, they failed to agree upon a contractual settlement of the case under the Qualified Settlement Offer statutes or otherwise. We conclude the trial court erred in granting the Hills’ Motion to Enforce Unconditionally Accepted Qualified Settlement Offer because there was neither a valid offer under the Qualified Settlement Offer statutes nor a valid acceptance.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
Robb, J., and Crone, J., concur.