Kendrick v. Barker
15 P.3d 734, 2001 WY 2, 2001 Wyo. LEXIS 2 (2001)
Rule of Law:
Wyoming law emphasizes the finality of settlement agreements and does not recognize the subsequent discovery of an unknown injury as a mutual mistake sufficient to set aside a general release of personal injury claims, absent proof of fraud, duress, or unconscionability.
Facts:
- Stephanie B. Kendrick was injured when her vehicle collided with a tractor-trailer operated by Daniel L. Barker, d/b/a Barker Construction.
- On June 4, 1999, Kendrick and Barker, with their respective legal counsel, participated in a settlement conference with a mediator.
- On June 7, 1999, the mediator wrote to both parties, outlining the terms of a tentative settlement agreement and stating that Kendrick had until June 8, 1999, to accept Barker's final offer.
- On June 8, 1999, Kendrick's attorney faxed an acceptance of '$40,000.00 in full settlement of all claims against the Defendant' to Barker's attorney and the mediator.
- After Kendrick received the draft settlement documents, she notified her attorney that she would not accept the settlement and subsequently hired a new attorney.
- On July 19, 1999, after the settlement conference and her acceptance, Kendrick was diagnosed with a closed head injury that was unknown at the time of the agreement.
Procedural Posture:
- Stephanie B. Kendrick filed a lawsuit against Daniel L. Barker for injuries sustained in a vehicle collision.
- The district court entered a scheduling order setting various deadlines and assigning the case to a mediator for a settlement conference.
- After Kendrick's attorney notified the district court that a settlement had been reached, the trial setting was vacated.
- Barker filed a motion with the district court seeking enforcement of the oral settlement agreement.
- Kendrick opposed the enforcement motion, arguing mutual mistake due to a newly discovered closed head injury, as well as claims of contingencies, duress, and unconscionability.
- The trial court held a hearing on Barker's motion to enforce the settlement agreement.
- The trial court ruled that an oral settlement agreement without contingencies was reached, that duress and unconscionability claims were not established, and that while a question of fact on mutual mistake existed, Wyoming law did not recognize unknown injury as grounds for setting aside a release of all claims.
- Kendrick appealed the trial court's decision to the Supreme Court of Wyoming.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the subsequent discovery of an unknown injury, previously unknown to both parties, constitute a mutual mistake that warrants setting aside an oral settlement agreement that released all personal injury claims?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Golden
No, the subsequent discovery of an unknown injury does not constitute a mutual mistake sufficient to set aside a previously agreed-upon oral settlement agreement that released all personal injury claims in Wyoming. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the district court's enforcement of the oral settlement agreement, emphasizing the public policy favoring settlement and the inherent power of trial courts to enforce such agreements. The court reiterated that a settlement agreement is a contract, and its enforceability depends on the parties' intent. The trial court's finding that an oral agreement existed without contingencies, based on the evidence, was deferred to. While acknowledging that many jurisdictions allow releases to be set aside for unknown injuries, often considering factors like the dignity of the human person, the unpredictability of long-term injury effects, and unequal bargaining power, the court prioritized the finality of settlements and the contractual principle that parties are generally bound by their bargains. The court stated that a mutual mistake requires both parties to be under the same misconception about a basic assumption of the contract, but a party bears the risk of mistake when aware of limited knowledge but treats it as sufficient. Here, Kendrick, advised by counsel, was aware of the uncertainty surrounding her condition and therefore accepted a known risk regarding the extent or consequences of her injuries by agreeing to a general release. The court explicitly declined to adopt a special rule for personal injury releases. Regarding claims of duress and unconscionability, the court found Kendrick failed to establish prima facie cases. Applying the three-prong economic duress test from Blubaugh v. Turner, the court determined Kendrick's financial issues and her attorney's advice did not meet the criteria, particularly because she chose to refuse the settlement and hire a new attorney, indicating she had alternatives and was not coerced by wrongful acts.
Analysis:
This case significantly strengthens the enforceability of settlement agreements in Wyoming, particularly in personal injury cases. By refusing to recognize the post-settlement discovery of unknown injuries as a valid ground for mutual mistake, the court prioritizes the finality of contracts and the public policy encouraging settlements. This ruling places a substantial burden on plaintiffs to fully understand and accept the potential risks of future medical developments when entering into a general release. Consequently, it may make it more challenging for plaintiffs in Wyoming to rescind personal injury settlements, even in the face of unforeseen and severe medical conditions discovered after the agreement.
