 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
THORNTON v. HUBILL9/24/1997
Carl Jefferson Thornton (Thornton) appeals from an adverse summary judgment ruling dismissing his claim for breach of a settlement agreement against United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company (USF & G), Hubill, Inc. (Hubill), and Economy Fire & Casualty Company (Economy Fire). We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
In October 1984, the parties entered into a written settlement agreement arising from a personal injury action in which Thornton sustained substantial injuries. The agreement obligated USF & G and Economy Fire, as Hubill's insurers, to pay Thornton an initial lump sum and $2000 per month at six percent annual interest for the longer of Thornton's life or twenty years.
The agreement included three documents: the settlement agreement and release, an assignment of obligation to make periodic payments, and acceptance of annuity contract and assignee, all of which Thornton and his attorney signed. Economy Fire and USF & G purchased an annuity to fund their payment obligations and assigned liability for future payments to First Executive Corporation (First Executive). First Executive owned the annuity. Executive Life Insurance Company (Executive Life) made the required payments to Thornton. Executive Life defaulted in October 1993. Thornton filed suit against Hubill, USF & G, and [571 NW2d Page 32]
Economy Fire in October 1994, alleging breach of their settlement agreement.
The district court granted Hubill, USF & G, and Economy Fire's motion for summary judgment. On appeal Thornton argues material issues of fact exist regarding whether the parties had a meeting of the minds, whether purchase of the annuity itself or Thornton's receipt of monthly payments relieved Hubill, USF & G, and Economy Fire of liability, and the identity of the assignee.
II. Standard of Review.
We review an appeal from summary judgment for errors of law. Iowa R. App. P. 4. Summary judgment is appropriate only if no genuine issue of material fact exists. C-Thru Container Corp. v. Midland Mfg. Co., 533 N.W.2d 542, 544 (Iowa 1995). The moving party bears the burden of proving the nonexistence of a material fact. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Milne, 424 N.W.2d 422, 423 (Iowa 1988). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Hoffnagle v. McDonald's Corp., 522 N.W.2d 808, 811 (Iowa 1994). This procedure is functionally akin to a directed verdict, and every legitimate inference that reasonably can be deduced from the evidence is afforded the nonmoving party. Id. A fact issue is generated if reasonable minds can differ on how the issue should be resolved. Thorp Credit, Inc. v. Gott, 387 N.W.2d 342, 343 (Iowa 1986). A party may not rely on the hope of the subsequent appearance of evidence generating a fact question. Prior v. Rathjen, 199 N.W.2d 327, 330-31 (Iowa 1972). If the conflict in the record consists only of legal consequences flowing from undisputed facts, entry of summary judgment is proper. Milne, 424 N.W.2d at 423. When a motion for summary judgment is supported, the nonmoving party must respond with "specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial." Iowa R. Civ. P. 237(e); Uhl v. City of Sioux City, 490 N.W.2d 69, 74 (Iowa App. 1992). If the nonmoving party does not so respond, "summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against him." Id.
III. Summary Judgment.
The district court found the plain, unambiguous language of the settlement agreement documents expressed the parties' intent to extinguish Hubill, USF & G, and Economy Fire's legal obligations to Thornton and to completely release Hubill, USF & G, and Economy Fir
Page 1 2 3 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|