 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Stafford v. Allstate Life Insurance Co.10/18/2005
A simple automobile accident has resulted in a class-action lawsuit challenging settlement practices of Allstate Insurance Company and several of its affiliated companies.
In 1997, Melvin Block allegedly caused an automobile accident which injured Joshua Stafford. Stafford, through his mother, Rebecca Stafford sued and then agreed to a settlement with Block and his insurer, Allstate Insurance Company. As part of the settlement, Stafford signed a document releasing Block, Allstate, and Allstate's "affiliates" from all claims arising out of the accident. Four years after signing the release, Stafford sued Allstate and several of its affiliates as class representative of a purported class of persons who had been involved in structured settlements with one or more of the Allstate entities. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Allstate and its affiliates based on the affirmative defense of release.
We affirm the summary judgment favoring appellees Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Life Insurance Company, and Allstate Settlement Corporation---the "Transaction Defendants"---and reverse the summary judgment as to appellees Allstate Indemnity Company, Allstate Property and Casualty Company, Allstate County Mutual Insurance Company, and Allstate Texas Lloyds---the "Nontransaction Defendants"---because (1) the release covers the settlement-related claims asserted in the present lawsuit, (2) the release releases the Transaction Defendants, and (3) Stafford has alleged sufficient facts to support personal standing as to the Nontransaction Defendants.
(1) The Release Covers the Settlement-related Claims Asserted in the Present Lawsuit
Summary judgment is properly granted only when the movant establishes that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c); Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Perez, 819 S.W.2d 470, 471 (Tex. 1991); Mo. Pac. R.R. v. Lely Dev. Corp., 86 S.W.3d 787, 790 (Tex. App.---Austin 2002, pet. dism'd). Because the propriety of a summary judgment is a question of law, we review the trial court's decision de novo. Natividad v. Alexsis, Inc., 875 S.W.2d 695, 699 (Tex. 1994). The standards for review of a traditional summary judgment are well established: (1) the movant must show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; (2) in deciding whether there is a disputed material fact issue precluding summary judgment, the court must take evidence favorable to the non-movant as true; and (3) the court must indulge every reasonable inference in favor of the non-movant and resolve any doubts in the non-movant's favor. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c); Pustejovsky v. Rapid-Am. Corp., 35 S.W.3d 643, 645--46 (Tex. 2000); Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548--49 (Tex. 1985).
A defendant seeking summary judgment must, as a matter of law, negate at least one element of each of the plaintiff's theories of recovery or plead and prove each element of an affirmative defense. Mo. Pac. R.R., 86 S.W.3d at 790. Not until the defendant establishes its right to summary judgment does the plaintiff bear the burden of raising a fact issue. Id. If a trial court's order granting summary judgment does not specify the basis for the court's ruling, the summary judgment will be affirmed if any of the theories advanced by the movant are meritorious. Carr v. Brasher, 776 S.W.2d 567, 569 (Tex. 1989).
The settlement agreement provided that Stafford would receive a set of structured payments over a number of years. In return, Stafford released Block and Allstate from any future claims. To pay for the settlement, Allstate
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|