 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Griffin v. Westfall7/5/2005
ttling defendant.' In order for this limitation to apply however, the court required the fact to be 'explicitly set out as having been considered in approving the settlement.' That was not done here.
There is no dispute that, at the time of settlement, Westfall was covered by Cloverdale's commercial insurance policy. Griffin's argument is really that, because Cloverdale denied that Westfall was covered, the court should have found that the policy was not available to Westfall at the time Griffin released him from liability. But a fair reading of the discovery response shows that Cloverdale informed Griffin that Hartford had not yet made a determination on coverage. Griffin, who had a copy of the policy, knew that the availability of the commercial policy limit was an open question.
This situation is analogous to that of a plaintiff, injured in an accident, who settles with the tortfeasor without yet knowing the full extent or consequences of his injuries. In Bennett v. Shinoda Floral, Inc., the court considered the voidability of a release executed by an injured plaintiff. In situations where the plaintiff has no knowledge that he has any personal injury 'it is unjust to hold him to the release where it is clear that he did not contemplate the possibility that an injury would arise in the future. In contrast, when a person signs a release knowing that he has been injured, he assumes some risk that his condition may worsen.'
'He knowingly takes a gamble in agreeing to a settlement. This risk that circumstances will change is inherent in the settlement process.' In affirming summary judgment in favor of the released defendants, the court concluded that the balance tipped in favor of the policy of favoring private, final settlement, rather than the competing policy of favoring just compensation for accident victims.
Here, Griffin knew that Westfall might potentially be covered by a secondary policy capable of providing him with full compensation . And Westfall was, in fact, covered by that policy at the time of settlement. We conclude that the trial court correctly determined that the Westfalls were solvent at the time of settlement. Accordingly, Cloverdale was released by operation of law.
Griffin asserts that even if Westfall was solvent, Cloverdale should be estopped from invoking the settlement because he justifiably relied on Cloverdale's 'express denial' of Westfall's coverage. He argues that the doctrines of negligent misrepresentation and estoppel bar Cloverdale's release. Griffin further argues that if Westfall was solvent at the time of settlement, the settlement should be rescinded because the agreement was based on a mutual mistake of fact.
None of these arguments were preserved below by raising them with the trial court. Therefore, we do not address these arguments on appeal. To summarize, as the trial court indicated in oral remarks, this result seems harsh. Nevertheless, it is a result that the law and the policies behind it dictate.
We affirm the order of dismissal.
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.
|
|