 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re All Kelley & Ferraro Asbestos Cases12/30/2004
he claimants filed suit in the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court and that some of the claimants who did file suit there did not name all of the CCR member companies as defendants. However, based on our decision that the settlement agreement provides for several liability as opposed to joint and several liability among the member companies and that judgments for each claimant against all CCR members cannot be upheld, we need not and do not reach this jurisdictional issue.
Conclusion
{ } The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded. MOYER, C.J., F.E. SWEENEY, LUNDBERG STRATTON and O'CONNOR, JJ., concur.
CARR, J., concurs but writes separately.
PFEIFER, J., dissents.
DONNA J. CARR, J., of the Ninth Appellate District, sitting for RESNICK, J.
CARR,J., concurring.
{ } Although I agree with the majority's resolution on the merits of this appeal, I feel compelled to write separately to address the jurisdictional issue. It is my opinion that personal jurisdiction here was either consented to or waived by a failure to timely object.
PFEIFER,J., dissenting.
{ } Excessive focus on a single phrase or sentence of an extensive settlement document can lead to an unbelievably distorted interpretation. Unfortunately, that is what this court has done in this case. It has chosen to focus on the last part of the first sentence of paragraph 13 of the settlement agreement. I agree that that part of the sentence suggests that CCR member companies are severally liable. In fairness, however, this court should acknowledge that there are other provisions in the settlement agreement.
{ } Paragraph five of the settlement agreement provides that CCR will make 12 payments of approximately $10,000,000 each, depending on the number of qualifying claims. This provision is straightforward: CCR is responsible for a lump sum payment. No provision in the settlement agreement provides for payment of less than this amount. The only mention in the settlement agreement of lesser payments is in paragraph 13, which gives the plaintiffs the discretion to declare the agreement null and void if they don't receive full payment.
{ } When read in its entirety and in the context of the settlement agreement, it is clear that the first sentence of paragraph 13 merely defers to the producer agreement the allocation of CCR member payments. Pursuant to paragraph five, payments must approximate $10,000,000. The producer agreement also makes no mention of any eventuality in which less than the full amount can be paid to the plaintiffs. It is apparent from the agreement that the plaintiffs were not concerned with which CCR members made payments, only that the payments required by paragraph five be made. It is also apparent that the CCR members agreed to pay $10,000,000 on each payment date.
{ } I understand why the individual CCR members would like to avoid covering the shares of former CCR members that have declared bankruptcy . But their own agreement covers the situation before us. Not that this court will acknowledge it. Pursuant to paragraph 2(b) of Section III of the producer agreement, a participating producer is terminated from the agreement upon declaring bankruptcy. The agreement does not state that consequently that participating producer's share of liability shall go unpaid. Instead, Section F of Attachment A to the Producer Agreement provides:
{ } "In the event that a Participating Producer shall * * * have its membership terminated * * *, the corres
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|