After an automobile collision, Patricia Carr sued Jenny Yim for negligence and sued Yim’s parents under vicarious-liability theories. Yim moved to enforce a settlement that her insurer allegedly accepted, while her parents sought summary judgment. The trial court enforced the alleged settlement and denied the parents’ motions. The Court of Appeals reversed both rulings. The uncontroverted evidence could not support vicarious liability under either the family-purpose doctrine or respondeat superior because the parents did not have the required legal relationship to Yim’s driving. The court also held that no binding settlement agreement formed because Carr’s offer required an unequivocal acceptance of a specific, limited liability release and the insurer did not accept those terms. A proposed release that differed materially from the offer was not an acceptance and did not create a meeting of the minds. The companion appeals therefore ended with judgment for the parents on the vicarious-liability claims and rejection of enforcement of the alleged settlement.