(DOWNLOAD) "Carole Briggs v. Erie Insurance Group" by 1417 PITTSBURGH 1990 Superior Court of Pennsylvania Nos. 1397 PITTSBURGH 1990 * Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Carole Briggs v. Erie Insurance Group
- Author : 1417 PITTSBURGH 1990 Superior Court of Pennsylvania Nos. 1397 PITTSBURGH 1990
- Release Date : January 19, 1991
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 68 KB
Description
This is an appeal from an order granting Summary Judgment in favor of Appellee, Erie. Appellants, Briggs and Painter, representatives of the estates of their deceased daughters, seek review of the trial court's action on their claim against Erie for fraudulent inducement. Upon review of this claim and the arguments presented, we conclude that Summary Judgment was improperly entered in this case. Contrary to the trial court's finding, the Appellants' claims against Erie do not seek rescission of a settlement agreement, but rather are claims for damages based upon Erie's fraudulent acts which occurred during settlement proceedings. Because rescission of the settlement agreement is not sought, the trial court erred in ruling that Appellants' actions were precluded by this court's previous decisions in a matter involving these Appellants, and therefore, Appellants may proceed in litigating their claims. In issuing its ruling the trial court relied on the factual events which preceded the filing of the instant complaint. Ms. Briggs and Ms. Painter each had a daughter who died as a result of an automobile collision with a vehicle operated by Michael Smith. Erie, Smith's insurer, initiated settlement discussion with Briggs and Painter in their capacities as representatives of their daughters' estates. As a result of these ""discussions"" Briggs executed a general release for a settlement of $125,000, and Painter did likewise for the amount of $130,000. Both releases recite that they operate as a release of all claims against Michael Smith ""and any and all other persons, firms, corporations, [and] associations, . . . arising out of the accident on or about January 11, 1987."" Briggs and Painter later brought an action against Michael Smith and Michael Taylor, another individual alleged to be responsible for the accident. Smith and Taylor pled the defense of the release. The trial court granted the defendant's preliminary objections, ruling that plaintiffs, having failed to tender the settlement proceeds, could not attack the releases and seek their rescission. On appeal to the Superior Court the trial court's decision was affirmed ""on the basis of [the trial court's] opinion.""