Charles Gary Miller, Appellant v. Handle Construction Company, Appellee

Summary

The court held that an accepted Rule 68 offer of judgment is interpreted as a contract and that post-offer communications cannot be used to determine its meaning. Although double-recovery principles do not independently require reducing the judgment, an offset would be warranted if the payment from the manufacturer belonged to Miller because the offer promised payment in complete satisfaction of Handle's claims. The court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine ownership of the payment. Justice Christen, joined by Chief Justice Carpeneti, dissented and would have held that the uncontested facts established Miller's entitlement to the offset.