KUTZ v. DEERE & COMPANY
342 P.3d 1018
Okla. Civ. App.2014Background
- Kutz and AFR sued Deere and Grissoms for product liability, warranties, negligence, and fraud over farm equipment purchased in 2007.
- The header of the equipment caught fire repeatedly before a total loss in June 2009; replacement equipment was later provided by Grissoms.
- In August 2009 Deere drafted a Settlement Agreement/Release offering a $10,000 credit toward a Deere rotary platform, which Kutz signed after Grissoms supplied the document.
- Kutz received the $10,000 credit as part of the settlement, and AFR acknowledged coverage of repairs and loss by insurance.
- In June 2011, Kutz/AFR filed suit; Defendants moved for summary judgment based on the prior Settlement Agreement; Kutz opposed with an affidavit, which Defendants moved to strike; trial court granted both motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the affidavit should be disregarded as a sham issue of fact | Kutz argues the affidavit shows coercion and duress not reflected in deposition | Deere/Grissoms contend the affidavit contradicts prior testimony and is self-serving | Affidavit properly rejected; no sham issue shown. |
| Whether the settlement release bars Kutz's claims | Kutz contends release was invalid due to duress/undue influence | Release unambiguously covers claims arising from the fire | Settlement/Release valid and bars the claims. |
| Whether economic duress invalidates the settlement | Kutz asserts duress due to coercive circumstances | No wrongful act or coercion proved; business necessity to settle | No economic duress; court upholds summary judgment. |
| Whether evidence supports elements of economic duress under Centric Corp. | Evidence shows pressure and lack of free will | No unlawful acts; coercion not shown by record | Record lacks requisite elements of economic duress. |
Key Cases Cited
- Corbett v. Combined Communications Corp. of Oklahoma, Inc., 654 P.2d 616 (Okla. 1982) (settlement clarity controls unless fraud or mistake shown)
- Centric Corp. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., 731 P.2d 411 (Okla. 1986) (economic duress elements; court may decide law question or submit to jury)
- Whitehorse v. Johnson, 156 P.3d 41 (Okla. 2007) (settlements favored; avoid litigation unless fraud/duress)
- Reeds v. Walker, 157 P.3d 100 (Okla. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion review tied to underlying summary judgment)
- Rose v. Sapulpa Rural Water Co., 621 P.2d 752 (Okla. 1981) (standard for interpreting evidentiary material on summary judgment)
- Tortorelli v. Mercy Health Center, Inc., 242 P.3d 549 (Okla. 2010) (affidavits creating sham issues considered against deposition timeline)
- Ishmael v. Andrew, 137 P.3d 1271 (Okla. 2006) (cross-examination/access to evidence relevant to affidavit)
- Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Daniel, 217 P.3d 127 (Okla. 2009) (summary judgment evidentiary standards)
- Clinesmith v. Harrell, 992 P.2d 926 (Okla. 1999) (duress/evidence standards in contracts)
- Gaines v. Comanche County Medical Hospital, 143 P.3d 203 (Okla. 2006) (summary judgment standard—reasonable minds may differ)