103 So. 3d 993
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Omar Otaola dies from injuries after being struck by Cusano’s delivery truck; survivors are Marisela Otaola (as personal representative and guardian of two minors) and the two minors.
- Allstate tendered the policy limits of $1,000,000 to the Otaola estate, with $500,000 to be paid directly and $500,000 structured; AIG was to resolve excess coverage, but its policy position was not yet determined.
- probate court approved a $1,000,000 settlement for the minors’ claim in 2007, without authorization for a release by Mrs. Otaola on behalf of herself or the estate or for Cusano’s to be released.
- Allstate’s tender occurred before any full release or complete settlement of all claims; Cusano’s did not participate in probate proceedings or secure a release, and no release was executed.
- In 2008, Mrs. Otaola filed the wrongful death action; Cusano’s asserted accord and satisfaction and sought to recover or enforce a complete settlement through dismissal with prejudice.
- The trial court dismissed the case with prejudice; the court of appeal held the settlement was not a global complete settlement and remanded for ongoing prosecution, crediting the Allstate proceeds against Cusano’s.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Allstate settlement was a partial settlement of minors’ claims or a global settlement. | Otaola contends it was a partial settlement with release pending as to AIG; not a release of Cusano’s. | Cusano's argues it was a complete release of all claims, enforceable to bar the wrongful death action. | Settlement not proven to be global; remand proper. |
| Whether Cusano's is entitled to accord and satisfaction against the settlement. | Affirmative defenses show no mutual intent to settle all claims; Allstate paid, but no release was executed. | The settlement constituted accord and satisfaction of all claims against Cusano’s. | Triable issue of fact on accord and satisfaction; not discharged. |
| Whether Cusano's can demand disgorgement or recovery of the Allstate proceeds. | Any demand would be improper since Allstate paid to support survivors and Cusano’s is not prejudiced by continued litigation. | Cusano’s should be entitled to repayment if no release authorized. | Not warranted; dispute remains with insurer; proceeds credited only as applicable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Makar v. Gowni, 983 So.2d 769 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (evidence of meeting of the minds required for settlement terms)
- University of Miami v. Francois, 76 So.3d 360 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (ambiguous settlement terms require further proceedings)
- Martinez v. So. Bayshore Tower, L.L.L.P., 979 So.2d 1023 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (starting point for accord and satisfaction analysis)
- United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Estate of Levine, 87 So.3d 782 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (insurer liability beyond policy limits for overreaching settlement terms)