Giaccone v. Canopius U.S. Insurance
133 F. Supp. 3d 668
D.N.J.2015Background
- Plaintiffs Antonio and Rita Giaccone owned insured commercial/rental property covered by a Canopius policy from May 2012–May 2013; Hurricane Sandy damaged the property on October 29, 2012.
- Defendant investigated and offered a full settlement; Plaintiffs executed a Release and Settlement Agreement on November 27, 2013, receiving $458,446.11.
- The Agreement expressly defined the October 29, 2012 loss as the “Subject Loss,” but also released “any and all claims,” including unknown claims and “any and all claims that were made or could have been made under or against” the policy, and stated there were “no remaining claims of any kind” under the policy.
- Plaintiffs later submitted a supplemental claim for damage from a January 31, 2013 storm (submitted January 16, 2014); Defendant denied coverage relying on the release.
- Plaintiffs sued for breach of contract and bad faith; Defendant moved to dismiss or for summary judgment asserting the release bars the January 31, 2013 claim and seeking fees under the release.
- The Court treated the motion as one for summary judgment, found the release clear and unambiguous, rejected Plaintiffs’ narrower reading and their unilateral misunderstanding, and granted summary judgment to Defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Settlement Agreement releases only October 29, 2012 (Sandy) losses or all policy claims | The Agreement concerns only losses "stemming from" Hurricane Sandy (October 29, 2012) | The Agreement releases "any and all claims," including known and unknown claims under the Policy, covering all losses through the settlement date | Release is broad and unambiguous; it waives all claims under the Policy, barring the Jan. 31, 2013 claim |
| Whether factual disputes (meeting of the minds/misunderstanding) preclude enforcement | Plaintiffs credibly misunderstood the scope; surrounding communications referenced Sandy only, creating factual issues | Plaintiffs signed a clear written release; New Jersey law presumes signers read and understood agreements absent fraud/duress | No genuine factual dispute; unilateral mistake/subjective misunderstanding does not avoid clear written release |
| Whether extrinsic evidence (pre-signing communications) can vary the integrated agreement | Communications identifying "Superstorm Sandy" show limited scope | Parol evidence cannot alter a clear, unambiguous integrated release; no claim of fraud/duress sufficient to permit rescission | Parol evidence cannot override clear text; absence of fraud/duress means enforcement as written |
| Whether Defendant is entitled to fees for enforcing the release | — | Release entitles prevailing party to attorney’s fees and costs in any action to enforce the Agreement | Court allowed Defendant to file fee affidavits for approved award under local rules |
Key Cases Cited
- Weisman v. N.J. Dep’t of Human Servs., 982 F. Supp. 2d 386 (D.N.J. 2013) (settlement agreements are contracts enforceable under state contract law)
- Atalese v. U.S. Legal Servs. Grp., L.P., 219 N.J. 430, 99 A.3d 306 (N.J. 2014) (mutual assent and waiver require knowledge and intent to surrender rights)
- Raiczyk v. Ocean Cnty. Veterinary Hosp., 377 F.3d 266 (3d Cir. 2004) (signing a contract creates a conclusive presumption that signer read and assented to terms)
- Bohler-Uddeholm, Inc. v. Ellwood Grp., 247 F.3d 79 (3d Cir. 2001) (clear and unambiguous contract terms must be enforced as written)
- Recchia v. Kellogg Co., 951 F. Supp. 2d 676 (D.N.J. 2013) (a release of "any and all" claims unambiguously waives broad categories of claims)