Feight v. Brooks
2020 Ohio 5205
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- On Aug. 16, 2016, a semi driven by Dennis Brooks struck Frank and Virgie Feight; Brooks was driving for FedEx or a FedEx contractor; the Feights were insured by Donegal Mutual.
- FedEx (through adjuster Edward Macy) negotiated a settlement: initial offers specified a direct payment plus payments toward liens (Medicare, Donegal, former attorney Patrizio, Aetna); numbers in emails and drafts were internally inconsistent.
- FedEx ultimately offered $80,000 direct to the Feights and to pay liens for a stated “total” of $119,808.99 (itemized amounts summed to a larger number, creating a near $10,000 discrepancy and an express cap on Medicare at $10,000 in the draft agreement).
- The Feights signed and notarized the Settlement Agreement on Mar. 16, 2018, but withheld delivery pending receipt of payment; after FedEx missed a self-imposed deadline, the Feights attempted to void the agreement and filed suit.
- Trial court (adopting a magistrate’s recommendation) treated the enforcement request as a summary-judgment matter and enforced the agreement; the Feights appealed, arguing fraudulent inducement/mistake and that certain post-agreement Medicare letters were improperly excluded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Settlement Agreement is enforceable (fraudulent inducement or mutual mistake) | Feight: agreement void because Macy misrepresented FedEx’s obligation to pay Medicare liens in full; alternatively, mutual mistake about lien payment amount | FedEx/Brooks: parties reached agreement; Feights executed settlement; agreement governs and should be enforced | Reversed in part: trial court erred. The agreement contains material ambiguities (especially re: Medicare lien amount/total cap); factual issues remain and summary judgment enforcement was improper |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by granting FedEx’s motion in limine to exclude two Medicare conditional-payment letters received after the agreement | Feight: letters are admissible to show lien amounts and support rescission/fraud/mistake arguments | FedEx/Brooks: letters postdate the agreement and are irrelevant to parties’ intent at execution | Affirmed in part: exclusion not an abuse of discretion because the letters postdate the Mar. 16, 2018 agreement and therefore cannot inform the parties’ intent at formation |
Key Cases Cited
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64 (Ohio 1978) (summary-judgment standard)
- Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (Ohio 1998) (summary-judgment review and construing evidence for nonmoving party)
- Mitseff v. Wheeler, 38 Ohio St.3d 112 (Ohio 1988) (moving party’s burden on summary judgment)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (reciprocal burden for nonmoving party and Civ.R. 56 evidence limits)
- Noroski v. Fallet, 2 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 1982) (essential elements of contract)
- Shifrin v. Forest City Enters., Inc., 64 Ohio St.3d 635 (Ohio 1992) (use of parol/extrinsic evidence to ascertain intent when contract ambiguous)
- AAAA Enters., Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (Ohio 1990) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)