A Mississippi appeals court has upheld a $275,000 UM settlement that hinged on a Friday text message and a same-day email acceptance. 

The Court of Appeals of Mississippi ruled on September 15, 2026, that a Forrest County circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it enforced the agreement between a policyholder and USAA General Indemnity Company. The policyholder had tried to back out after the Labor Day weekend. 

The underlying claim arose from a January 2020 collision in Hattiesburg, where an uninsured driver struck the policyholder's vehicle at an intersection on US Highway 49. An initial police report placed the policyholder at 100 percent fault, but a later expert report indicated the other driver's headlights were off. USAA adjusted its liability evaluation to 85 percent fault for its insured and 15 percent for the uninsured driver. 

A second mediation failed to produce a deal but narrowed the gap to $25,000 - the policyholder demanding $275,000, USAA offering $250,000. Both sides agreed to hold those positions open for one week. 

On the final day of that window, the policyholder's attorney texted USAA's counsel that his client was "not coming off the 275k given liens" and asked whether the insurer could obtain authority at that figure. Before close of business, USAA's counsel emailed back: "We have a settlement at $275k in exchange for dismissal and release of all claims, non-disparagement and confidentiality. Mediation costs split." 

The following Tuesday, the policyholder's attorney emailed that his client "no longer wishes to settle and would instead like to proceed to trial." USAA moved to enforce. 

At an evidentiary hearing, the policyholder's former attorney confirmed the only material term in dispute had been the dollar amount and that conditions including confidentiality, non-disparagement, and split mediation costs were already established. The policyholder herself testified she had never agreed to $275,000, but the trial court found the attorney's communications binding. 

The appeals court held that Mississippi law favors settlement agreements, enforcing them "absent any fraud, mistake, or overreaching." USAA needed only to show by a preponderance of evidence - the more-likely-than-not standard - that a meeting of the minds occurred. The text, the email acceptance, and testimony about pre-agreed terms met that threshold. The court added that litigants are generally bound by their attorneys' actions, citing the presumption that an attorney has authority "to speak for and bind his client."