Kerry Maggio v. James Parker The Sandwich Kings, LLC (d/B/A Jimmy John's) Republic-Vanguard Insurance Company And Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company
250 So. 3d 874
La.2018Background
- On Jan. 14, 2015 Kerry Maggio was injured in an auto accident involving James Parker (employee of The Sandwich Kings). Plaintiff sued Parker, The Sandwich Kings, and Republic-Vanguard; he did not name Brenda Parker (vehicle owner) or Louisiana Farm Bureau (insurer).
- On July 6, 2015 Maggio settled with Brenda Parker and Farm Bureau for $25,000 and signed a "Final Release and Settlement" releasing "all other persons, firms or corporations who are or might be liable" for the accident.
- Sandwich Kings and Republic-Vanguard moved for summary judgment arguing the broad release unambiguously discharged them as non-signatory third-party beneficiaries.
- Trial court denied summary judgment; the court of appeal affirmed. The Louisiana Supreme Court granted certiorari and heard the case.
- The Supreme Court held there was a genuine issue of material fact as to the parties' intent and whether the release was meant to benefit defendants, so summary judgment was improper; the denial was affirmed and the case remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Maggio's Argument | Sandwich Kings/Republic-Vanguard Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a release that discharges "all other persons...who are or might be liable" bars claims by non-signatory defendants | The release did not manifest intent to release defendants who were not parties and provided no consideration to them; extrinsic evidence may show plaintiff did not intend to release them | The release language is clear and unambiguous and releases all persons who may be liable, including non-signatories | There is a genuine issue of material fact about intent; summary judgment for defendants denied |
| Whether extrinsic/parol evidence may be used to interpret a broadly worded compromise | Plaintiff: Brown v. Drillers permits extrinsic evidence where releasor was mistaken or did not understand rights released | Defendants: La. Civ. Code art. 2046 requires enforcing clear, explicit contract language without extrinsic evidence | Court: Jurisprudential exception (Brown) applies to compromises; plaintiff produced substantiating facts raising an issue of intent, so extrinsic evidence is appropriate at least to defeat summary judgment |
| Whether the release created a stipulation pour autrui (third‑party beneficiary) in favor of defendants | Plaintiff: No clear, manifest intent to benefit defendants | Defendants: Language releases "all other persons...who are or might be liable," manifesting clear third‑party benefit | Court: Defendants did not establish as a matter of law that a stipulation pour autrui exists; issue is fact‑intensive and not suitable for summary judgment |
| Whether summary judgment is appropriate on issues involving subjective intent | Plaintiff: Intent is fact‑based; summary judgment improper | Defendants: Language controls; summary judgment proper | Court: Summary judgment is rarely appropriate for subjective intent questions; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Drillers, Inc., 630 So.2d 741 (La. 1994) (recognizes limited exception allowing extrinsic evidence to determine scope/intent of compromises)
- Joseph v. Hosp. Serv. Dist. No. 2 of Parish of St. Mary, 939 So.2d 1206 (La. 2006) (outlines criteria for stipulation pour autrui/third‑party beneficiary)
- Penalber v. Blount, 550 So.2d 577 (La. 1989) (summary judgment rarely appropriate for subjective intent issues)
- Hines v. Garrett, 876 So.2d 764 (La. 2004) (summary judgment standards and resolving doubts for non‑movant)
- Dunn v. City of Kenner, 187 So.3d 404 (La. 2016) (standards for appellate review of summary judgment)