 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bunce v. A.P.I.6/7/2005
adow is a large one. First, as noted, in paragraph five of the release, Bunce specifically reserved claims against non-settling defendants.
One of the "basic elements" of a standard Pierringer release is that it does reserve the remainder of the plaintiff's causes of action against the non-settling parties. Frey, 269 N.W.2d at 920 n.1. Parties not released by a plaintiff's Pierringer release remain jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff. See Hosley v. Armstrong Cork Co., 383 N.W.2d 289, 292 (Minn. 1986) (stating that Pierringer releases reserve "the plaintiff's right to maintain a cause of action against any non-settling defendant, but releases from liability any defendant who is a party to the settlement agreement"). Appellants remain potentially liable to Bunce.
Bunce's death, certainly untimely and not in contemplation by any of the parties, does not eradicate Pierringer/Frey. Appellants correctly argue that the district court erred in allowing respondent to proceed with its contribution and indemnity claims on the theory that all possible claims against appellants have disappeared. Bunce's next of kin may have a wrongful death action against appellants. We are not asked to decide today whether they do or they don't. We can only note that no court of law has said that they do not. If Bunce's next of kin bring a wrongful death action(s), then those defendants are free to implead A.P.I. for contribution and/or indemnity. The first thing A.P.I. will say to Bunce's next of kin is that they are estopped from collecting any money from A.P.I. because A.P.I. will insist that it settled all of its differences relating to his injuries directly with Bunce while he was alive. A.P.I. will argue that Bunce's death now from those same injuries does not affect the previous full and final settlement. In that argument, respondent would be correct.
The Pierringer agreement expressly reserved Bunce's potential claims against appellants. Appellants' attorneys are correct that their clients still have possible legal exposure. Bunce's next of kin have not yet brought a wrongful death against against appellants nor has any court said that, as a matter of law, they cannot. A wrongful death action would potentially involve Bunce's next of kin and appellants, but not respondent because of respondent's carefully drafted Pierringer release. That Pierringer release both forevermore protects respondent, and forevermore keeps respondent from new contribution and indemnity rights against appellants.
DECISION
Based on the plain language of the Bunce Pierringer release, the release was to be construed as a standard Pierringer release. Under the Bunce Pierringer release, respondent did not pay more than its fair share of common liability. Respondent is protected from future monetary claims by Bunce and/or his next of kin, and/or cross-claims/third-party claims by non-settling defendants and potential (by definition non-settling) defendants. Bunce reserved potential claims against appellants, so appellants are entitled to the protection of Pierringer/Frey.
Accordingly, we conclude that respondent, having signed a Pierringer release, cannot pursue claims for contribution and indemnity against appellants.
Reversed.
|