New York Law Journal “District Court Enforces Settlement Agreed to by Email Despite Absence of Formal Agreement” by Thomas E.L. Dewey

July 24, 2020

Parties typically expect that a settlement does not become enforceable until there is ink to paper on a formal written settlement agreement. But as a recent case in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York reminds us, settlements can be reached by email correspondence, even when certain terms of the settlement are excluded. For instance, a settlement agreement may be enforced even without defining the scope of a release or when parties merely agree to “usual and customary terms of a settlement agreement (including confidentiality and non-disparagement).”


In McCalla v. Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Boston, No. 18-cv-1971 (JMA) (SIL), 2020 WL 587003 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2020), Judge Azrack enforced the parties’ settlement agreement reached via email despite an attorney’s email legend specifying that the correspondence was “for settlement purposes only without prejudice – not to be used in litigation,” and a representation to the court that a settlement had been reached “in principle.” The court rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to back out of the settlement, holding that (i) there was a binding settlement agreement, (ii) plaintiff’s counsel had authority to settle on plaintiff’s behalf, and (iii) plaintiff agreed to the settlement amount.

Read more.


This article first appeared in the New York Law Journal on July 24, 2020.  Sarah A. Sheridan, an associate of the firm, assisted in the preparation of the article.

Please reload

Featured Posts

DPK founder and partner Tom Dewey was selected by his peers for inclusion in 27th edition of The Best Lawyers in America. Tom was recognized as a lead...

The Best Lawyers in America / DPK in the News

August 20, 2020

Please reload

Recent Posts
Please reload

Please reload

Search By Tags
Please reload

© 2020 Dewey Pegno & Kramarsky LLP                                                                                  

In some jurisdictions, this may be considered attorney advertising.