WAYNE T. FLANAGAN, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF RENA O'DELL FLANAGAN, DECEASED, AND WAYNE T. FLANAGAN, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, AN AGENCY OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND TRAFLITE INDUSTRIES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEES
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.
Flanagan appeals summary judgment dismissing his wrongful death action against the state DOT and Traflite Industries, claiming a general release clause with boilerplate language releasing unnamed joint tort-feasors was insufficient to release unamed defendants as a matter of law. The court reversed, holding that the effectiveness of a general release to discharge tort-feasors not specifically named is a question of fact precluding summary judgment.
The court held that whether a general printed release is effective to discharge tort-feasors other than those specifically named is a question of fact precluding summary judgment. Boilerplate language may not reflect the actual intent of the parties, and extrinsic evidence of intent is admissible to resolve the question.
[1] A general release clause containing boilerplate language intended to release unnamed joint tortfeasors may be ineffective if extrinsic evidence demonstrates that the part…
[2] Whether a general printed release is effective to discharge tortfeasors other than those specifically named is a question of fact that may preclude summary judgment.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“boilerplate language drafted to protect those in privity with the named parties may not reflect the intent of the parties, and found that the better rule would be to allow extrinsic evidence of the parties' intent”
Establishes the legal principle that boilerplate release language is not conclusive of intent and that extrinsic evidence is admissible
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRena O'Dell Flanagan was killed as a passenger in a vehicle operated by Vicky Caplinger. Flanagan, as personal representative of the estate, executed …
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 Intent Of The Parties cases and more on FLexlaw
THREADGILL, Judge.
Wayne T. Flanagan, individually, and as personal representative of the estate, of Rena O’Dell Flanagan, deceased, appeals a final summary judgment holding that the language in a general release clause was sufficient to release the appellees, Florida Department of Transportation, a state agency, and Traflite industries, Inc., a Florida corporation, as unnamed joint tort-feasors. We reverse.
This wrongful death action arose from an accident in which Rena O’Dell Flanagan, a passenger in a vehicle operated by Vicky Caplinger, was killed. The appellant, as personal representative of the estate of Rena O’Dell Flanagan, released Mrs. Ca-plinger and State Farm, her liability, insurance carrier, for consideration. Thereafter, Appellant sued Appellees for damages, alleging that the state was negligent in creating a hazardous condition at the intersection where the accident occurred.
The release was a standard printed form with blanks for the names of the parties to be typed or written in. After these blanks the release included the language, “and all other persons, firms or corporations liable or who might be claimed to be liable.” The names of Ms. Caplinger and State Farm were typed in, and the release was further modified in two places where the form stated that all claims were being released and discharged, by the addition of the words “except uninsured motorist claims.”
Appellees moved for summary judgment, contending that this language, as a matter of law, released them as potential tort-fea-sors. Attached to the motion was the affidavit of a State Farm claims representative,." stating that it was the intent of State Farm to include each paragraph as stated on the face of the release and that State Farm did not intend to include any other terms and conditions in the release. Appellant timely filed two opposing affidavits, one from a State Farm representative stating that the release was a standard form used in automobile liability claims and that it was “not the intention of State Farm to release Appellees nor any other entity not specifically mentioned in the release.” Appellant’s other affidavit was that of the appellant, Wayne T. Flanagan, who executed the release, stating that it was not his intention to release any other person or entity or potential tortfeasor other than those named. The lower court granted summary judgment and this appeal was timely filed.
Appellant argues that whether a boilerplate liability release clause may suffice to release parties not specifically named in the release is an issue of material fact precluding summary judgment. We agree, finding that the Florida Supreme Court addressed and decided this issue in Hurt v. Leatherby Insurance Company, 380 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 1980).
Justice Adkins wrote in Hurt that boilerplate language drafted to protect those in privity with the named parties may not reflect the intent of the parties, and found that the better rule would be to allow extrinsic evidence of the parties’ intent. The supreme court expressly held that whether a general printed release is effective to discharge tort-feasors other than those specifically named is a question of fact precluding summary judgment. 380 So. 2d at 434.
In the counter-affidavits filed by the appellant, both parties to the release stated that it was not their intent to release anyone other than those named parties. These affidavits, contrasted with that filed by appellees, create an issue of fact precluding summary judgment.
The final judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for trial.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and DANAHY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Banfield v. Songea Louis, 589 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…necessary to protect the insurance companies from multiple judgments. The instant release contains no such internal inconsistency and/or ambiguity. Therefore, Banfield’s reliance on Hurt, and the companion cases of Flanagan v. Department of Transp., 532 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), and Walls v. Ashland Oil, Inc., 424 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), rev. denied, 430 So. 2d 450 (Fla.1983), is misplaced. The waiver provision upheld in Theis, discussed earlier, was far less specific than the one at issue in the…
-
Sangiovanni v. Stengle, 652 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…v. Leatherby Ins. Co., 380 So. 2d 432 (Fla.1980). “[W]hether a general printed release is effective to discharge tort-feasors other than those specifically named is a question of fact precluding summary judgment.” Flanagan v. State Dept. of Transp., 532 So. 2d 714, 715 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Therefore, a question of fact existed in this case as to whether the plaintiffs intended to release all persons or just those specifically named in the release. The Florida Supreme Court stated in Hurt that “the better rule…
-
Berwald v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 570 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…d). .As we find the second issue dispositive of the case, we do not address the issue involving the applicability of the general release executed by the lessee. See, Hurt v. Leatherby Insurance Co., 380 So. 2d 432 (Fla.1980) and Flanagan v. D.O.T., 532 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). . Originally established by caselaw in Florida in Anderson v. Southern Cotton Oil Co., 73 Fla. 432, 74 So. 975 (1917). . See, e.g., Metropolitan Property and Liability Co. v. Gray, 446 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).…
Authorities Cited
- Nolan Hurt and Florence Hurt v. Leatherby Ins. Co., 380 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 1980)