 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Vaughan v. City of Broken Arrow5/25/1999
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE PERMANENT LAW REPORTS. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL.
VAUGHAN v. CITY OF BROKEN ARROW
___P.2d___
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIVISION III
0 Annette Vaughan, plaintiff/appellee, was injured on November 4, 1994, when her vehicle was struck from behind by a vehicle owned by the City of Broken Arrow and driven by a city employee. Vaughan brought a tort action against the City and the parties entered into settlement negotiations. By letter, Vaughan's attorney requested a quick settlement of the property damage claim, but advised that Vaughan was still being treated by her doctor and that upon her medical release they would attempt to settle her personal injury claim. The City responded by letter offering to settle the property damage claim and stating, "The medical damages will remain open at this time." Vaughan accepted the partial settlement in January of 1995 and signed a release prepared by the City. The release specifically stated that it resolved only the disputed property claim and that "damages for personal injury are not covered by this settlement." By accompanying letter, Vaughan reiterated that she would contact the City to negotiate her personal injury claim as soon as she was released from medical treatment. On March 26, 1996, Vaughan sent a letter to the City seeking to settle her personal injury claim. The City denied her claim and Vaughan sued. The City's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the statute of limitations had run under 51 O.S. § 157 was denied by the trial court and a jury awarded Vaughan damages. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed on the limitations issue. Vaughan petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari.
CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED.
OPINION OF THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS VACATED.
JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT AFFIRMED.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
1 Annette Vaughan, plaintiff/appellee, was injured on November 4, 1994, when her vehicle was struck from behind by a vehicle owned by the City of Broken Arrow and driven by a City employee. On November 9, 1994, Vaughan gave the City notice of her claim for damages under the Governmental Tort Claims Act, 51 O.S. § 151, et seq. On November 17, 1994, Vaughan's attorney sent a letter to the City outlining her claim for property damages and urging a quick settlement to minimize out-of-pocket expenses. The letter also stated, "Mrs. Vaughan is being seen and treated by her doctor. Upon her release we will try to settle her personal injury claim."
2 The City responded by letter on December 13, 1994, and offered Vaughan $12,355.00 to settle her claim. The letter stated that the settlement figure was "based on NADA book value for a 1994 Escort Station Wagon, four door XL and the medicals submitted." On December 20, 1994, the City sent a second letter that was in most respects the same as the earlier letter. However, the second letter offered Vaughan $12,385.00 "in settlement for property damages only on your claim." The letter also added a paragraph that specifically addressed Vaughan's claim for personal injuries. That paragraph stated, "The medical damages will remain open at this time. To date, we have seen several insurance forms, and liens, but no medical bills, no diagnosis and no prognosis." Two days later, Vaughan notified the City by letter that she would accept the proposed property damage settlement.
3 On January 23, 1995, Vaughan executed a release prepared by the City. The release stated that Vaughan accepted th
Page 1 2 3 4 Oklahoma Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|