 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Burlington Northern Railroad Company v. General Projection Systems. Inc.5/2/2000
n of the previous point of error, we need not consider this issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.
Settlement Credit
In its seventh point of error, Burlington contends the trial court erred in denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict because GPS's settlement with WJHW satisfied all of GPS's tort damages. Before the issues were submitted to the jury, Burlington filed an election of credit for settlement proceeds. Burlington asserted that, under Chapter 33 of the civil practice and remedies code and under the one satisfaction rule, it was entitled to receive a credit of $300,000 (the amount WJHW paid GPS) toward any damages awarded on any of GPS's tort claims. The trial court's judgment did not provide for any settlement credit.
Here, any tort claim GPS asserted against WJHW, it asserted against Burlington. In other words, GPS did not assert any claims against only WJHW. Thus, GPS alleged both Burlington and WJHW converted and negligently mishandled its property. The settlement agreement settled all of GPS's claims against WJHW connected with the construction contract between Burlington and GPS, including GPS's conversion and negligence claims. The agreement provided that the "consideration and sums paid herein represent settlement of actual damages between the parties."
Under the one satisfaction rule, a plaintiff is entitled to only one recovery for any damages suffered. Crown Life Ins. Co. v. Casteel, 43 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 348, 356, 2000 WL 72142, *11 (Jan. 27, 2000). The rule applies when multiple defendants commit the same act as well as when defendants commit technically different acts that result in a single injury . Id. The non-settling defendant may only claim a credit based on the damages for which all defendants are jointly liable. Id.; Paschall v. Peevey, 813 S.W.2d 710, 712 (Tex. App._Austin 1991, writ denied). Thus, the non-settling defendant is entitled to offset any liability for joint and several damages by the amount of common damages paid by the settling defendant, but not for any amount of separate or punitive damages paid by the settling defendant. Casteel, 43 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. at 357.
GPS contends Burlington is not entitled to a credit because it did not offer sufficient proof of the amount of settlement. A defendant seeking a settlement credit has the burden of proving the settlement credit amount. Mobil Oil Corp. v. Ellender, 968 S.W.2d 917, 927 (Tex. 1998). A party meets this burden by placing the settlement agreement or some evidence of the settlement amount in the record. Id. In its election of credit filed with the trial court, Burlington stated that the amount of the settlement was $300,000. It later attached a copy of the settlement agreement to its reply to GPS's amended opposition to Burlington's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. GPS did not contest the settlement amount before the trial court. We conclude Burlington met its burden of proof on the settlement amount. See id.
GPS also contends Burlington did not meet its burden to show "whether any funds paid in settlement concerned conduct for which Burlington could be jointly and severally liable with WJHW." However, GPS, not Burlington, had the burden to prove that the settlement funds were allocable to actual damages for which Burlington and WJHW were not jointly and severally liable. Once Burlington offered proof of the settlement amount, the burden shifted to GPS to offer evidence allocating the settlement between actual damages for which Burlington and WJHW were jointly liable and actual damages for which only WJHW was liable. See Casteel, 43 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. at 357; Mobil Oil, 968 S.W.2d at 928. The rationale for this rule is that sett
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|