Luttrell v. Cooper Industries, Inc.
| Decision Date | 27 October 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. Civ.A. 97-575.,Civ.A. 97-575. |
| Citation | 60 F.Supp.2d 629 |
| Parties | Clyde P. LUTTRELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Kentucky |
Charles L. Cunningham, Jr., Louisville, KY, Donna Keene Holt, Knoxville, TN, for Plaintiffs.
Harry K. Herren, Woodward, Hobson & Fulton, Louisville, KY, Clifford J. Zatz, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, Washington, DC, Jill F. Lowenbraun, Woodward, Hobson & Fulton, Louisville, KY, John A. Berger, Amy Tieman Potter, Busald, Funk & Zevely PSC, Florence, KY, for Defendants.
This matter is before the court upon motion by the defendants, Cooper Industries, McGraw-Edison Co., and American Laundry Machinery, Inc., for summary judgment. The defendants argue that a general release executed by the parties settling a previous suit bars the plaintiffs from bringing this action. The court, having heard the arguments of counsel and being otherwise sufficiently advised, will grant the defendants' motion.
The parties to this case executed a release on November 25, 1995 resolving a lawsuit over the disposal of chemicals by the defendants on the plaintiffs' farm. The applicable portions of the release read:
[The plaintiffs] fully and finally release and discharge the [defendants] from any and all claims and demands, rights and causes of action of every type or kind, known and unknown, which the undersigned had, have now, or may have in the future ... or may have or claim to have as a result of or arising out of the alleged dumping and disposal of waste products.... This includes, but not by way of limitation, dismissal of all claims for ... personal injury ... and all other environmentally related claims which were raised or asserted or could have bean raised or asserted in the ... Civil Action No. 89-155 ... [The plaintiffs] acknowledge and agree that this Release shall apply to, and constitute full satisfaction of, any and all known, unknown and unanticipated injuries and damages arising out of or related to the subject matter of the above styled action. (emphasis added)
In November of 1996, Virginia Luttrell was diagnosed with cancer, and the plaintiffs filed a second personal injury suit against the defendants.
In the prior suit, the plaintiffs alleged that they "may have suffered physical injury and therefore have an increased risk of future complications or harm" due to the defendants' conduct. The plaintiffs offered evidence that they suffered cellular damage that had yet to be manifested as physical injuries. The district court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for increased risk of cancer and for medical monitoring because any physical injury had not yet manifested itself and due to a failure to show that any injury had been caused by the defendants' conduct.
When the parties executed the release, the only claims still pending at trial concerned damage to the plaintiffs' property. The trial court had granted the defendants summary judgment on the personal injury issues, although the plaintiffs had not yet pursued an interlocutory appeal. The plaintiffs now argue that during settlement negotiations they intended to limit the scope of the release to include only those property claims. The defendants counter that the release unambiguously encompassed all present and future claims for personal injury and precludes the plaintiffs from pursuing this present action.
The terms of an unambiguous contract cannot be varied by extrinsic evidence. O.P. Link Handle Co. v. Wright, 429 S.W.2d 842 (Ky.1968). Thus, a court may not consider parol evidence when interpreting a contract unless the contract is ambiguous. Schachner v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Ohio, 77 F.3d 889, 893 (6th Cir.1996). Contract language is not ambiguous unless it is subject to two reasonable interpretations. Id. at 893. The ambiguity must be patent and apparent on the face of the contract. Id.
The determination that a contract suffers from ambiguity must be based upon the common, plain meaning of the language of the contract. Kentucky-West Virginia Gas Co. v. Browning 521 S.W.2d 516 (Ky.1975). A court, however, is not required to read a contract in a vacuum: "A contract is to be construed as a whole so as to ascertain and give effect to the true intent of the parties, and the circumstances under which the contract was executed and the conduct of the parties thereafter can be considered by the Court in determining what their intention was, without it becoming a violation of the parol evidence rule." Rudd-Melikian, Inc. v. Merritt, 282 F.2d 924, 928 (6th Cir.1960). Nevertheless, before a court may consider extrinsic evidence of the parties' intent, "it must find an ambiguity on the face of the contract." Schachner, 77 F.3d at 893.
Parol evidence consists of evidence of agreements between or the behavior of the parties prior to or contemporaneous with the contract. This includes "evidence of a contemporaneous oral agreement on the same subject matter, verifying, modifying, contradicting or enlarging" a contract. M.R. Kopmeyer Co. v. Barnes, 276 S.W.2d 21, 23-24 (Ky.1955). Barring an ambiguity, such evidence cannot be admitted. "If the language is unambiguous, the meaning of the language is a question of law, and the intent of the parties must be discerned from the words used in the instrument." Taggart v. U.S. 880 F.2d 867, 870 (6th Cir.1989).
In this case, the language of the release is not ambiguous. The court will not create an ambiguity where none exists. See Friction Materials Co., Inc. v. Stinson, 833 S.W.2d 388 (Ky.Ct.App.1992). The plaintiffs executed the release as part of a bargained-for settlement. At the time of the settlement, the plaintiffs were aware that they were at a heightened risk for cancer; they had brought claims for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Allergan Biocell Textured Breast Implant Prods. Liab. Litig.
...865, 868 (S.D. Iowa 2018) (finding the plaintiff suffered no injury because she was asymptomatic).• Kentucky. Luttrell v. Cooper Indus. , 60 F. Supp. 2d 629, 630–32 (E.D. Ky. 1998) (stating the plaintiff's "personal injury claim for cancer had not accrued at the time of the earlier lawsuit"......
-
Davis v. Siemens Medical Solutions Usa, Inc.
...scheme. To succeed Davis must somehow avoid the imperatives of the parol evidence rule. See, e.g., Luttrell v. Cooper Industries, Inc., 60 F.Supp.2d 629, 631 (E.D.Ky. 1998); M.R. Kopmeyer Co. v. Barnes, 276 S.W.2d 21, 23-24 (Ky.1955) (defining parol evidence as "a contemporaneous oral agree......
-
Journey Acquisition-II, L.P. v. EQT Prod. Co.
...oral agreement on the same subject matter, verifying, modifying, contradicting, or enlarging a contract.’ ” Luttrell v. Cooper Indus., 60 F.Supp.2d 629, 631 (E.D.Ky.1998) (quoting M.R. Kopmeyer Co. v. Barnes, 276 S.W.2d 21, 23–24 (Ky.1955) ). The unambiguous, written agreement “is presumed ......
-
C.A.F. & Assocs., LLC v. Portage, Inc.
...contradict, vary or alter the language appearing in the writing.” Davis, 399 F.Supp.2d at 793 (citing, e.g., Luttrell v. Cooper Indus., Inc., 60 F.Supp.2d 629, 631 (E.D.Ky.1998); Johnson v. Dalton, 318 S.W.2d 415, 417 (Ky.1958); Cantrell Supply, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 94 S.W.3d 381,......