 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Griffin v. Westfall7/5/2005
JUDGES: Concurring: Anne Ellington C. Kenneth Grosse
UNPUBLISHED
Under this state's contribution statutes and case law, settlement of a personal injury action with a solvent agent releases that agent's vicariously liable principal once a trial court determines the settlement is reasonable. Here, Charles Griffin entered into a settlement agreement with John Westfall and Melanie Westfall that included a covenant not to execute in exchange for payment of the policy limits of the Westfalls' insurance. The trial court's determinations that the settlement was reasonable and that the Westfalls were solvent at the time of the settlement are properly supported by the record. The court's determination that the covenant released Cloverdale Paint Corporation by operation of law is correct. We affirm.
The facts surrounding Griffin's injury are substantially undisputed. John Westfall struck Griffin with his truck while Griffin was crossing the street in a pedestrian cross walk. Westfall was using his own vehicle to make a delivery for his employer, Cloverdale. Griffin suffered serious back and knee injuries.
Griffin sued the Westfalls for negligence and Cloverdale on a respondeat superior theory. Prior to trial, Griffin settled with the Westfalls for the $100,000 limit of their personal automobile insurance. The settlement agreement included a covenant that Griffin would not execute against the Westfalls' assets. While Cloverdale was not a party to the agreement, the parties expressly stated in it that it was not to operate as a release of Cloverdale.
Following disclosure of the settlement, Cloverdale moved for a reasonableness hearing and also sought dismissal on the theory that the settlement operated as a release of any vicarious liability claims against it. The trial court conducted a hearing and determined that Westfall was acting within the scope of his employment with Cloverdale at the time of the accident and that he was covered by the latter's policy of insurance with The Hartford Insurance Company. The court further determined that the Hartford policy had a limit of $1 million. Together with the personal policy of the Westfalls, the total liability insurance available was $1.1 million. The court also decided that the total available insurance proceeds were sufficient to compensate Westfall at the time of settlement. Lastly, the court decided that in view of these determinations, the covenant not to execute operated to release Cloverdale and dismissed it from the action. Griffin appeals.
RELEASE OF A SOLVENT AGENT
Griffin argues that the trial court erred in granting Cloverdale's motion to dismiss because Westfall was not solvent when Griffin settled with him. We disagree.
A court may dismiss a cause of action under CR 12(b)(6) if the plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Dismissal is appropriate only if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief. When considering a CR 12(b)(6) motion, the court presumes the plaintiff's allegations to be true and may consider hypothetical facts not included in the record. Dismissal under the rule is a question of law reviewed de novo.
If matters outside the pleadings are presented to the court and are not excluded, a CR 12 motion is treated as a CR 56 motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Review of an order granting summary judgment is de novo.
Matters outside the pleadings were presented, and there is n
Page 1 2 3 4 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|