No Meeting of Minds No Contract
Post 4798
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gZzyvX4W, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gGDuY2-j and at https://lnkd.in/gjhYupNS and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4750 posts.
Attorney Richard Schicker sued a former client, Brandi Cady, seeking payment for attorney fees under a contingency fee agreement. The district court dismissed Schicker’s complaint, finding that there had been no meeting of the minds during the formation of the agreement and thus there was no valid, enforceable contract.
In Richard Schicker v. Brandi Cady, No. A-23-455, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 7, 2024) the Nebraska Court of Appeals explained what is needed to form a viable and enforceable contract.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Attorney Schicker sued Cady alleging that he had entered into a written contract with Cady whereby Schicker was to represent Cady in a claim against Lincoln Financial Group (LFG) for life insurance benefits owing to Cady due to the death of Cady’s husband. LFG later agreed to pay Cady the full policy amount and the complaint sought judgment against Cady for 40 percent of that amount, plus any costs incurred by Schicker.
Cady testified that at the time of her husband’s death, the couple had three young children, and that she immediately attempted to collect his life insurance benefits.
Cady called Schicker’s law office and testified that she called to inquire about a personal injury claim, as she had heard from community members that the highway where her husband was killed had been deemed dangerous and was soon to be under construction.
A contingency fee agreement between Cady and Schicker was executed. The agreement was entered into evidence and state that Schicker was to be paid 40 percent of the amount recovered or settled on behalf of Cady. In the first paragraph of the fee agreement is the statement, “[c]lient may have a claim against ___” and the section is filled in with “Lincoln Financial[.]” She did not recall “Lincoln Financial” appearing anywhere in the fee agreement at the time she signed it.
On October 2, 2017, at 10:36 a.m., Cady sent Schicker an email with the subject line “Cancellation of Services.” The email states: “At this time, I have a family member who is going to handle insurance claims for Lincoln Financial. … I do still want to retain you for possible case regarding the accident itself.”
On October 2, 2017 the parties canceled their fee agreement. Another copy of the fee agreement was entered into evidence, which includes the additional notation “Agreement cancelled as of 10-2-2017” at the bottom of the form and Schicker’s signature below the notation.
Cady testified that she had done all of the work to collect the insurance claim herself. Klenda (a representative of LFG) testified that the only phone call she had with Schicker occurred after the claim was paid and he was attempting to collect attorney fees from LFG. The district court dismissed Schicker’s complaint. The blank space in the fee agreement as established that the actual fee agreement was not completed.
In addition the district court found that Schicker lacked credibility. Schicker’s itemized bill stated that he spent 58.6 hours of billable time over the course of 12 days working toward the collection of the insurance benefit.
The district court concluded that no agreement had been formed between Schicker and Cady because there was no meeting of the minds as elicited by the testimony at trial.
ANALYSIS - Meeting of the Minds.
A party seeking to enforce a contract has the burden of establishing the existence of a valid, legally enforceable contract. To create a contract, there must be both an offer and an acceptance; there must also be a meeting of the minds or a binding mutual understanding between the parties to the contract. It is a fundamental rule that in order to be binding, an agreement must be definite and certain as to the terms and requirements. It must identify the subject matter and spell out the essential commitments and agreements with respect thereto.
Because a meeting of the minds had not occurred, there existed no valid, enforceable contract between the parties. The district court did not err in so finding.
Since there was never a meeting of the parties’ minds concerning the claim at issue in the contingency fee agreement there was no valid and enforceable contract.
ZALMA OPINION
Signing a contract where the subject of the contract is left blank is an error a law student would never make nor should any licensed attorney like attorney Schicker. He had the unmitigated gall to sue a client for fees he claimed he earned to gain the benefits of a life insurance policy claiming to spend more than 4 hours a day for 12 straight days on the subject although he never contacted the insurer before they had already paid. He never obtained a valid contingency fee agreement because the key element was left blank when the client signed it. Amateurish actions by a lawyer should never be enforced.
(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg.
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy
Go to X @bzalma; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Insurance Requires Fortuity to be an Insured Risk
Post 5485
Posted on September 8, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Industrial Park Center, LLC, doing business as Mainspring Capital Group v. Great Northern Insurance Company, a foreign insurer, No. CV-25-0330-CQ, Supreme Court of Arizona (September 1, 2026).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified the following question to this Court:
"Is damage to property a “fortuitous” loss when, based on the insured’s knowledge at the time the insurance policy issued, it was reasonably foreseeable that such damage was almost certain to occur if certain preventative measures were not taken?"
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Mainspring owned commercial property leased to Star Fisheries for decades. Star Fisheries’ use of water and salt allegedly caused structural damage over time. In 2010, Mainspring learned of damage and made some repairs but did not implement all recommended preventive measures. In 2021–2022, additional similar structural damage was discovered, and ...
Qui Tam Relators are not officers of the United States
Posted on September 4, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Attempt to use Constitution to Stop a Qui Tam False Claims Act Case
Post 5486
FCA’s Qui Tam Provisions do not Violate the Appointments Clause.
In United States Of America, Clarissa Zafirov, ex rel; Dr. v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, d.b.a. Vipcare, Physician Partners, LLC, Anion Technologies, LLC, Freedom Health, Inc., Optimum Healthcare, Inc., Physician Partners Specialty Services, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 1, 2026).
The False Claims Act (“FCA”) allows the Attorney General to bring civil suits against perpetrators of fraud against the government. This case involves another portion of the FCA-the qui tam provisions-which allow people, called relators, who have knowledge about fraud against the government to pursue a case against the perpetrator of the fraud.
Dr. Clarissa Zafirov filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act on behalf of...
Posted on September 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
You Only Get One Chance to Sue
Post 5484
In David Cromp v. Johnny Harkrider, Monique Harkrider, and their Marital Community, dba Able Plumbing Plus, No. 61678-5-II, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2 (August 25, 2026) David Cromp hired Able Plumbing Plus in 2018 to install plumbing, including two toilets, at his residence. In 2019, both toilets allegedly leaked, causing damage. Insurance claims were submitted through Able’s contractor policy, but the insurer eventually denied the claims.
Cromp sued Able in 2022 for breach of contract based on the allegedly defective toilet installation. During that case, Cromp attempted to add claims related to Able’s conduct during the insurance claim process, including fraud, bad faith, tortious conduct, and bond-related claims, but the superior court denied leave to amend. The 2022 breach-of-contract claim was later dismissed with prejudice on summary judgment as time-barred.
On the same day the 2022 case was dismissed, Cromp filed a ...
