SUMEREL V. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO.
232 P.3d 128 (2009)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Goodyear (D) appealed a decision that held that it had entered into a
valid and enforceable settlement agreement with Sumerel (Ps).
FACTS: Ps successfully tried a products liability action against Chiles Power Supply
Company, and D, which designed and manufactured a defective hose that was installed in Ps'
and the two entities' heating systems. The jury awarded Ps approximately $ 1.3 million
against D, including repair and replacement costs, diminution in value damages, and 'other
costs and losses' incident to having to repair and replace their heating systems. In
addition, the jury found that D was responsible for 36% of such 'other costs and losses'
suffered by the Berzins and Dickes and 48% of those incurred by the Sumerels and Mr.
Kaufman. The court awarded prejudgment interest on the repair costs but not on the 'other
costs and losses' awarded to Ps. Both sides then appealed. The division eventually remanded
the case to the district court 'to determine from the existing record the proper accrual
dates for prejudgment interest on other costs and losses' and to calculate and award such
interest. D's lead attorney, discussed with Ps' lead attorney a potential compromise on the
applicable accrual dates. Although the parties appear to have agreed on the applicable
accrual dates with little difficulty, they had trouble getting their calculations of
prejudgment interest based on these dates to match. After a good deal of back and forth, and
after reviewing these charts, P noticed that D's calculations did not agree with Ps'
numbers. D's calculations were erroneously based on a wrongful allocation of 100% of those
costs and losses to D. This was in contrast to other categories of damages set forth in D's
charts, in which D had correctly applied the jury's fault allocations. D's error resulted in
an overstatement of the damages due by more than $ 550,000. P did not call this obvious
error to D's attention or to the attention of any other representative of D. P accepted D's
November 2, 2006 'offer.' P then followed his voicemail with a fax confirming the acceptance
of that purported 'offer.' Before anyone had signed the satisfaction of judgment, D realized
the error in his earlier calculations. He immediately called the error to P's attention and
sent P corrected versions of the charts and a revised satisfaction of judgment with
corrected numbers. P demanded that D adhere to the parties' alleged agreement, which would
have resulted in Ps' receiving over $550,000 more than what was due them. D refused to do
so, Ps filed a motion to enforce the purported 'settlement agreement.' The district court
granted Ps' motion, and D now appeals.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment