Permanent General Assurance Corp. v. Andrew Spooner

── Permanent General Assurance Corp. v. Andrew Spooner ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Date: May 05, 2026 Category: General United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 25-2552 ___________________________ Permanent General Assurance Corporation lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Andrew Spooner lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City ____________ Submitted: April 14, 2026 Filed: May 5, 2026 ____________ Before KELLY, ARNOLD, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ ARNOLD, Circuit Judge. After the vehicles Andrew Spooner and Casey Graham were driving collided with each other on a Missouri road, injuring Spooner, he and Graham’s insurer, Permanent General Assurance Corporation (PGAC), discussed a settlement. In PGAC’s view, the parties had reached an enforceable agreement, so when Spooner later said they had not, PGAC sued him for breach of contract. Spooner moved to dismiss the lawsuit on the ground that no contract had actually been formed. The district court1 agreed and dismissed the case—a decision that PGAC takes issue with on appeal. Reviewing the court’s decision to dismiss de novo, see Torti v. Hoag, 868 F.3d 666, 671 (8th Cir. 2017), we affirm. At this stage of the case, we accept the factual allegations in PGAC’s complaint as true. See id. According to the complaint, the vehicle Graham was driving was owned by one Brandon Ward, with whom PGAC had an insurance policy that provided up to $25,000 in bodily injury coverage per person injured. Because Ward had given Graham permission to drive the vehicle, PGAC concluded that the policy’s coverage extended to claims arising from Graham’s operation of the vehicle. Some while after the accident, Spooner sent PGAC a letter in which he averred that he had been badly hurt and had been hospitalized for months. He explained that, though he didn’t “want the driver to get in trouble or have to pay [him] a lot of money,” he had many medical bills, couldn’t work, and needed help. So Spooner proposed that if PGAC paid him Graham’s “insurance money,” Spooner would “be good with that and not try to get any money from Mr. Graham or get a lawyer.” PGAC responded shortly after with its own letter. It wrote that “[t]his letter is an offer to settle the [l]iability,” and “to conclude this claim, we are asking you to complete and return the enclosed document(s).” It went on to say that PGAC “has agreed to tender the $25,000.00 policy limits in exchange for a signed release.” Enclosed with the letter was a release and indemnity agreement for Spooner’s signature providing that, in exchange for $25,000, Spooner would “release and discharge Brandon Ward and Casey Graham . . . from all personal injury claims for all damages” he sustained from the accident. 1 The Honorable Beth Phillips, then Chief Judge, now United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. -2-  A few weeks later an attorney responded to PGAC with a letter on Spooner’s behalf. She explained that the release agreement PGAC sent Spooner did not mirror the offer he had made, as it included a provision releasing Ward from liability in addition to Graham. So Spooner regarded the response as a rejection of his settlement offer. It’s at this point that PGAC turned to the district court, maintaining that its response to Spooner’s offer was an acceptance of it and not a rejection. The district court, though, agreed with Spooner that PGAC