ARCHIBALD LYON AND ROSE LYON, APPELLANTS,
v.
BRIAN J. SHEEN, APPELLEE; NICHOLAS TATUSKO AND ANNA TATUSKO, APPELLANTS, V. BRIAN J. SHEEN, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A general release naming only Merrill Lynch and its agents, employees, successors, and assigns does not release an individual stockbroker who was no longer employed by Merrill Lynch at the time the release was executed, and summary judgment in his favor was therefore erroneous.
A general release executed after an employee's departure from the employer does not release the individual employee merely because he was employed when the cause of action arose, absent explicit language including him.
[1] A general release naming an employer and its agents, employees, successors, and assigns does not release an individual employee who was no longer employed by the employer…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs sued Merrill Lynch and its employee stockbroker for improprieties in handling a customer's account. Merrill Lynch settled and provided a ge…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse General Release Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
LETTS, Judge.
This case involves a suit against Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith and its employee stockbroker for alleged improprieties in the handling of a customer’s account. Merrill, Lynch settled the matter with the plaintiff and a general release'was obtained. The court held that the general release also released the individual employee stockbroker and granted a summary judgment in his favor. We disagree and reverse.
The important operative fact here is that at the time the general release was given, the stockbroker no longer worked for Merrill, Lynch and the release only named Merrill, Lynch, together with its agents, employees, successors and assigns. Nonetheless, the stockbroker claims that the general release did cover him because he was in the employ of Merrill, Lynch at the time the cause of action arose and because of the circumstances out of which it arose. We are sympathetic to this argument but find from a reading of the general release that the individual stockbroker was not, in fact, included within its language. As a consequence, we find that the granting of the summary judgment in his favor was erroneous and, accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
REVERSE AND REMANDED.
GLICKSTEIN and BARKETT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sheen v. Archibald Lyon and Rose Lyon, 485 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1986)…tion to review a decision in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that a general release discharging an employer, its agents and employees does not release one who was no longer employed at the time the release was executed. Lyon v. Sheen, 467 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). The decision conflicts with a decision of another district court, Ford v. Coleman, 462 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), review denied, 475 So. 2d 694 (Fla.1985). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. This case inv…