 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rumbin v. Utica Mutual Insurance Co.8/15/2000
] the assignment of rights"); Antal's Restaurant v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co., 680 A.2d 1386, 1388 (D.C. App. 1996) ("courts generally `will honor an anti-assignment clause in contracts when it contains clear, unambiguous language'"); Peterson v. District of Columbia Lottery, 673 A.2d 664, 667 (D.C. App. 1996) (same); Henderson v. Roadway Express, 308 Ill. App. 3d 546, 720 N.E.2d 1108, 1110 (1999) ("the plain language . . . clearly indicates the parties intended to forbid [the assignment of rights]"); Cloughly v. NBC Bank-Seguin, N.A., 773 S.W.2d 652, 655 (Tex. App. 1989) ("where a contract expressly states that a right to payment arising under it is non-assignable, full force and effect must be given to this provision"); Portland Electric & Plumbing Co. v. Vancouver, 29 Wash. App. 292, 295, 627 P.2d 1350 (1981) (" hen a contract prohibits assignment in `very specific' and `unmistakable terms' the assignment will be void against the obligor").
In many of those cases the antiassignment language approved of bears little resemblance to the precise requirements set forth in the New Jersey and New York cases. For example, in Portland Electric & Plumbing Co. v. Vancouver, supra, 29 Wash. App. 294, the contract merely stated that " he Contractor shall not assign this contract or any part thereof, or any moneys due or to become due thereunder . . . ." Yet, the Court of Appeals of Washington held that " he language in the subject contract is sufficient to prohibit any effective assignment of monies due . . . ." Id., 295. A similar conclusion was reached by the Supreme Court of Colorado as to a contract that prohibited only the assignment "of any interest" in the contract. Parrish Chiropractic Centers, P.C. v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co., supra, 874 P.2d 1051. The court upheld that provision as preventing any effective assignment because " hen a contractual provision is clear and unambiguous, courts should neither rewrite it nor limit its effect by a strained construction." Id., 1055; see also Cloughly v. NBC Bank-Seguin, N.A., supra, 773 S.W.2d 655 (Texas Court of Appeals upheld validity of clause that provided "`[the plaintiff] shall not have the right to make any assignment or transfer any rights under this greement'").
Most significantly, in three recent cases, courts have upheld antiassignment provisions in structured settlement agreements in spite of the fact that the provisions did not contain the words "void" or "invalid." See Grieve v. General American Life Ins. Co., supra, 58 F. Sup. 2d 321 (provision stating "nor shall [the plaintiff] or any Payee have the power to sell, mortgage, encumber, or anticipate the periodic payments" valid to prevent assignment); Johnson v. First Colony Life Ins. Co., 26 F. Sup. 2d 1227 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (provision stating that "[the plaintiff shall not] have the power to sell or mortgage or encumber [any periodic payments]" prohibited assignment); Henderson v. Roadway Express, supra, 720 N.E.2d 1109 (provision stating that "`the laintiff [shall not] have the power to sell, mortgage, encumber, or anticipate the Periodic Payments'" valid to prevent assignment). In all three of these cases, the courts' main concern was the possible precedential effect of a decision "[lending the court's] approval to the voiding of unambiguous, bargained-for contract terms . . . ." Grieve v. General American Life Ins. Co., supra, 324.
Although the majority acknowledges the difference between these two schools of thought, the majority nevertheless decides to impose formulaic restraints on the language that contracting parties may employ to craft an antiassignment clause that limits the power to assign. This holding flies in the face of decades of our jurisprud
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Connecticut Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|