97-0854 La.App. 4 Cir. 9/10/97, Robbert v. Carroll
| Decision Date | 10 September 1997 |
| Citation | 699 So.2d 1103 |
| Parties | 97-0854 La.App. 4 Cir |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Burt K. Carnahan, Ann T. Schramm, Lobman, Carnahan and Batt, Metairie, for Relator.
Before LOBRANO, PLOTKIN and WALTZER, JJ.
[97-0854 La.App. 4 Cir. 1] WALTZER, Judge.
We granted certiorari to consider relator's exception of res judicata which was denied by the trial court. For the following reasons, we reverse.
This litigation arises from a vehicular collision which occurred on January 13, 1995, in New Orleans East. The vehicle driven by plaintiff, Patricia Robbert, was rear-ended by a vehicle owned and operated by Gretchen Carroll. Following the accident, Ms. Robbert was seen and examined by two physicians. On February 1, 1995, approximately two weeks after the accident date, Ms. Robbert went to State Farm's claims office to have the damage to her car appraised. Ms. Robbert spoke to a State Farm adjuster, who discussed the release of her personal injury claims with her. Before leaving State Farm's office, Ms. Robbert settled her personal injury claims and executed a release in favor of Gretchen Carroll and State Farm for the consideration of $500.00, with the provision that State Farm would pay up to $3,000.00 in future medical expenses incurred within 180 days of the signing of the release. After signing the release, Ms. Robbert promptly deposited the $500.00 check into her bank account. Subsequent to settling her personal injury claims, Ms. Robbert became ill with a viral infection and developed a neck condition that she now relates to the January 13, 1995, automobile accident. On January 12, 1996, Ms. Robbert filed suit against Ms. Carroll and State Farm, seeking to rescind the settlement and release agreement on grounds that the agreement was entered into under duress and that she was deceived into signing it. In response to the petition, Ms. Carroll and State Farm filed an exception of res judicata, which the trial court denied. Ms. Carroll and State Farm ("Relators") seek supervisory writ review of the trial court's denial of their exception of res judicata, which we grant.
The Louisiana Civil Code expressly provides that a transaction or compromise between two or more parties, who by mutual consent adjust their differences to prevent or resolve a [97-0854 La.App. 4 Cir. 2] lawsuit, carries force equal to the authority of adjudicated disputes. La. C.C. art. 3071; Brown v. Simoneaux, 593 So.2d 939 (La.App. 4 Cir.1992). The subsequent discovery by a claimant that an injury was more serious than initially believed does not entitle the claimant to rescind the settlement and release agreement. La. C.C. arts. 3071, 3079, 3083; Jurado v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 557 So.2d 266 (La.App. 4 Cir.1990). Article 3083 specifically provides that when parties settle disputes, issues that arise subsequent to the settlement do not give rise to grounds for rescission, unless the issues were purposely concealed by one of the parties to the settlement agreement.
Although this Court invalidated a settlement and release agreement...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hoddinott v. Hoddinott, 2017-CA-0841
...equal to the authority of adjudicated disputes. La. C.C. art. 3071." Robbert v. Carroll , 97-0854, pp. 1-2 (La. App. 4 Cir. 9/10/97), 699 So.2d 1103, 1104 (citing Brown v. Simoneaux , 593 So.2d 939 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1992) ); See also , 253 So.3d 240 Penton v. Castellano , 49,843, p. 9 (La. A......
-
Dumas v. Angus Chemical Co., 31,969-CW.
...2 Cir. 8/20/97), 698 So.2d 757, writ denied 97-2311 (La.12/12/97), 704 So.2d 1193; Robbert v. Carroll, 97-0854 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/10/97), 699 So.2d 1103, writ denied 97-2507 (La.12/19/97), 706 So.2d The parties' intent in executing a compromise is normally discerned from the four corners of ......
-
Dumas v. Angus Chemical Co.
...v. Owens, 29,613 (La.App. 2 Cir. 8/20/97), 698 So.2d 757,writ denied97-2311 (La.12/12/97), 704 So.2d 1193; Robbert v. Carroll, 97-0854 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/10/97), 699 So.2d 1103,writ denied97-2507 (La.12/19/97), 706 So.2d The parties' intent in executing a compromise is normally discerned fro......
-
Hymel v. Eagle, Inc.
...883 So.2d at 1150-1151. There is ample jurisprudence in this area as may be seen by this Court's analysis in Robbert v. Carroll, 97-0854 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/10/97), 699 So.2d 1103, and cases cited The Louisiana Civil Code expressly provides that a transaction or compromise between two or more......