KUTZ v. DEERE & COMPANY
342 P.3d 1018
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2014Background
- Kutz purchased farm equipment from Grissoms, Deere dealer in Okmulgee County; header of the equipment caught fire repeatedly 2007–2009 despite repair efforts.
- On June 23, 2009 the allegedly defective equipment was destroyed by fire; replacement equipment was provided two weeks later.
- In August 2009 Deere drafted a Settlement Agreement and Release; Kutz signed the agreement on August 25, 2009 and received a $10,000 credit toward a Deere rotary platform purchase.
- In June 2011, Kutz and AFR filed suit in Okmulgee County against Deere and Grissoms seeking product liability, warranty, negligence, and fraud claims; defendants asserted settlement release as a bar.
- The trial court granted summary judgment against Kutz and struck his supporting affidavit; AFR dismissed, and Kutz appealed the rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly struck Kutz's affidavit. | Kutz contends the affidavit supports duress and invalidity of the settlement. | Defendants contend the affidavit creates a sham issue of fact and contradicts prior testimony. | No reversible error; affidavit properly rejected as inconsistent with prior deposition. |
| Whether the settlement release bars Kutz's current claims. | Kutz argues the release is invalid due to duress and lack of genuine assent. | Defendants argue the release unambiguously covers all known claims and is enforceable. | Settlement release is unambiguous and bars the claims; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Whether economic duressinvalidates the settlement. | Kutz asserts duress existed before signing and affected free will. | Defendants contend there is no evidence of wrongful act or undue coercion. | No proof of economic duress; Centric factors not satisfied; judgment affirmed. |
| Whether the court properly applied Corbett/centering rules to assess duress and release terms. | Kutz asserts ambiguity and lack of meeting of minds. | Defendants rely on clear language and absence of fraud/mistake. | Court correctly found the release clear and binding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Corbett v. Combined Communications Corp. of Oklahoma, Inc., 654 P.2d 616 (Okla. 1982) (settlement releases are conclusive absent fraud or mistake)
- Centric Corp. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., 731 P.2d 411 (Okla. 1986) (economic duress elements; duress question of law vs. jury fact; not all hardships suffice)
- Tortorelli v. Mercy Health Center, Inc., 242 P.3d 549 (Okla. Civ. App. 2010) (affidavit sham issue consideration factors)
- Whitehorse v. Johnson, 156 P.3d 41 (Okla. 2007) (settlements and good faith standards)
- Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Daniel, 217 P.3d 127 (Okla. Civ. App. 2009) (duress/contract performance considerations)
- Clinesmith v. Harrell, 992 P.2d 926 (Okla. Civ. App. 1999) (evidentiary standards in contract/duress matters)
- Savage v. Burton, 125 P.3d 1249 (Okla. Civ. App. 2005) (evidence and affidavit credibility)
- Ishmael v. Andrew, 137 P.3d 1271 (Okla. Civ. App. 2006) (cross-examination and evidence considerations)