Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

December 2, 2016 by admin

Workers’ compensation — Mediated settlement agreement — Enforcement

41
Fla. L. Weekly D2688a
Top of Form

Workers’
compensation — Mediated settlement agreement — Enforcement — Where parties
entered into mediated settlement agreement which required claimant to execute a
general release and resignation in favor of employer, written paperwork
prepared by employer/carrier included references to circumstances whereby
claimant and his attorney would indemnify and hold harmless the
employer/carrier, and claimant and his attorney struck those provisions and
returned signed paperwork to the employer/carrier, it was error for judge of
compensation claims to deny claimant’s motion to enforce the agreement on the
basis that there was no meeting of the minds — “Release” differs from
“indemnification,” and indemnification was not an essential term of the
agreement — Inclusion of indemnification in paperwork prepared by
employer/carrier constituted a new offer which claimant declined to accept, but
claimant’s rejection of the new offer did not nullify the previous agreement

ERLIYING
SOTO, Appellant, v. C-WORTHY CORP./SUMMIT HOLDINGS-CLAIMS CENTER, Appellees.
1st District. Case No. 1D16-1968. Opinion filed December 1, 2016. An appeal
from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Daniel A. Lewis, Judge. Date
of Accident: September 1, 2015. Counsel: Kimberly A. Hill of Kimberly A. Hill,
P.L., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellant. H. George Kagan of Miller, Kagan,
Rodriguez & Silver, P.L., West Palm Beach.

(PER
CURIAM.) In this workers’ compensation appeal, Claimant seeks reversal of the
Judge of Compensation Claims’ (JCC’s) denial of his motion to enforce a
mediation settlement agreement. For the following reasons, we agree the JCC erred
in denying Claimant’s motion.

The
parties participated in a mediation conference which resulted in a mediation
conference report and a written mediation settlement agreement. The written
settlement agreement required Claimant to “execute a general release and
resignation in favor of the employer.” When the settlement paperwork prepared
by the Employer/Carrier (E/C) was received by Claimant’s attorney, it included
references to several circumstances whereby Claimant and his attorney would
“indemnify and hold harmless” the E/C. Claimant and his attorney struck those
provisions, and returned the signed paperwork to the E/C.

When
the E/C advised Claimant they were backing out of the settlement, Claimant’s
attorney forwarded a copy of the paperwork on to the JCC with a motion seeking
approval of the attorney’s fee and allocation of child support arrearage. After
the E/C filed a motion objecting to the approval of Claimant’s motion, Claimant
filed a motion to enforce the settlement and the JCC held an evidentiary
hearing on the motion.

In
his order denying Claimant’s motion, the JCC determined that the parties did
not reach a meeting of the minds regarding the indemnification language.
Accordingly, he found that an essential element of the agreement was not established,
and on that ground determined the agreement was not enforceable.

On
appeal, Claimant argues that because a “release” differs from
“indemnification,” indemnification was not an essential term of the agreement
and, thus, the JCC erred in finding the parties failed to agree on an essential
term. Because it is not disputed that the mediation settlement agreement was
unambiguous, Claimant argues that the JCC should have reviewed only the terms
of the agreement when determining whether there was a meeting of the minds.

“[I]t
is within the province of the JCC to determine whether a settlement was
reached, and if so, to establish its terms.” Chubb Group Ins. Co. v.
Easthagen
, 889 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Settlement agreements “are
governed by the rules for interpretation of contracts[,] are highly favored and
will be enforced whenever possible.” Robbie v. City of Miami, 469 So. 2d
1384, 1385 (Fla. 1985) (citation omitted). “The making of a contract depends
not on the agreement of two minds in one intention, but on the agreement of two
sets of external signs — not on the parties having meant the same thing but on
their having said the same thing.” Id. (quoting Blackhawk Heating
& Plumbing Co. v. Data Lease Fin. Corp.
, 302 So. 2d 404, 407 (Fla.
1974). “Where the terms of a contract are clear and unambiguous, the parties’
intent must be gleaned from the four corners of the document.” Crawford v.
Barker
, 64 So. 3d 1246, 1255 (Fla. 2011). Because resolution of this issue
requires interpretation of a written document, review is de novo. See Risco
USA Corp. v. Alexander
, 91 So. 3d 870 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).

The
JCC assumed that a general release would include an indemnification agreement
and it is this assumption that led to his error. Black’s Law Dictionary
defines “release” as “[l]iberation from an obligation, duty, or demand; the act
of giving up a right or claim to the person against whom it could have been
enforced.” 1292 (7th ed. 1999). To “indemnify” requires one “[t]o reimburse
(another) for a loss suffered because of a third party’s act or default.” 772
(7th ed. 1999). Thus, an agreement to sign a release does not result in an
agreement to indemnify the other party.

The
facts here are analogous to the facts in Bonagura v. Home Depot, 991 So.
2d 902 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). In Bonagura, it was undisputed that the
parties reached a “binding oral settlement agreement.” Id. at 904. The
paperwork prepared subsequently included material matters — a general release
— that had not been discussed. Id. at 905. The Bonagura Court
determined that “[b]ecause no release was negotiated and settled, this release
is not a part of the parties’ settlement or ‘necessary paperwork’ to be
executed.” Id. Here, the parties executed an unambiguous written
agreement to settle this matter and no mention was made regarding
indemnification. Because indemnification had not been negotiated, its inclusion
in the “necessary paperwork” exceeded the scope of the written agreement, such
that it was in effect a new offer which Claimant declined to accept. See
id. Claimant’s rejection of this new offer did not, however, nullify the
previous agreement under the terms as set out in the valid, binding settlement
agreement. See id.

Accordingly,
the order is REVERSED, and the matter REMANDED for entry of an order granting
Claimant’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement. (WOLF, RAY, and MAKAR,
JJ., CONCUR.)

* *
*


 

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982