STUART G. NEWMAN, FOR USE AND BENEFIT OF AMICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, 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.
Arnica Mutual Insurance Company, subrogated to its insured Newman, appealed a summary judgment dismissing its reformation claim against Metropolitan Dade County. The court affirmed, holding that Arnica failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that both parties mutually intended the settlement release to exclude property damage claims.
The court held that Arnica failed to establish mutual mistake by clear and convincing evidence. Newman's affidavit stated he did not intend to release property damage claims, while Siplin's affidavit stated he intended the release to cover property damage. This conflicting evidence demonstrated only a unilateral mistake, insufficient to support reformation.
[1] A contract may be reformed based on mutual mistake only if the evidence demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the parties shared a common misunderstanding of…
[2] A unilateral mistake by one party to a contract is insufficient grounds for reformation of that contract.
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“In order to reform a contract, the evidence must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that there was a mutual mistake of fact between the parties.”
Establishes the legal standard required for contract reformation in Florida
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA bus driver employed by Metropolitan Dade County collided with Newman's vehicle. Arnica paid Newman for the total loss of his 1982 Jaguar and was sub…
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 Reformation Of Release cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant, Stuart Newman [Newman] f/u/b/o Arnica Mutual Insurance Company [Arnica], appeals from an adverse summary judgment. We affirm.
A bus driver collided with Newman while operating a bus for Metropolitan Dade County [Dade County], Arnica paid its insured, Newman, for the total loss of his 1982 Jaguar. Newman sued Dade County. The case was settled during trial. Gary Siplin, the attorney who was handling the case for Dade County, was given authority to settle this matter without Metropolitan Dade County Risk Management Department’s [Risk Management] approval. Thereafter, Siplin sent a letter to Newman’s attorney enclosing “the release of all claims in full and final settlement.” The release which was signed by Newman released Dade County for bodily and personal injuries and property damage.
Arnica sued Dade County for negligent damage to one of its insured vehicles. The amended complaint sought reformation of the release executed between Newman and Dade County based on the mutual mistake of the parties. The complaint alleges that the parties intended that the release be only for bodily injuries and not for property damage.
After the release was signed, Risk Management continued to negotiate with Amica. Arlo Emory, a Claims Examiner for Dade County, also continued to negotiate with Arnica through written correspondence. In his deposition, Emory stated that he does not remember speaking with Siplin regarding this matter and that Siplin did not need Risk Management's authority to settle the claim.
Mr. Newman signed an affidavit stating that he did not intend to extinguish or impair Arnica’s property damage claim against Dade County. On the other hand, Siplin signed an affidavit stating that he intended the release to be for both property damage and personal and bodily injuries.
In order to reform a contract, the evidence must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that there was a mutual mistake of fact between the parties. See America Fire & Indem. Corp. v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co., 483 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Canal Ins. Co. v. Hartford Ins. Co., 415 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), review denied, 424 So. 2d 761 (Fla.1983). In viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Newman and Arnica, the evidence does not clearly and convincingly demonstrate that there was a mutual mistake between the parties. The evidence merely shows that there was a'unilateral mistake.
Accordingly, we affirm.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. Royal Auto. Grp., Inc., 675 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…laintiffs burden of proving the intent of parties and, by clear and convincing evidence, demonstrating some ground for reformation such as mutual mistake or unilateral mistake coupled with inequitable conduct. See Newman v. Metropolitan Dade County, 576 So. 2d 1352, 1353 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Ayers v. Thompson, 536 So. 2d 1151, 1154 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); 9 Fla.Jur.2d, Cancellation, Rescission, and Reformation of Instruments § 84 (1979). Provided the courts are rigorous in their application of this standard of pro…
-
Baker v. Falcon Power, Inc., 788 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…of the parties at the time the first lease agreement was executed, we cannot say that the trial court erred in concluding that Baker failed to prove its claim for reformation by clear and convincing evidence. See Newman v. Metropolitan Dade County, 576 So. 2d 1352, 1353.(Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Baker also contends that the trial court erred in awarding Falcon Power all of its reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in this matter. The determination of attorney’s fees is a ruling which falls within the sound discretio…
-
St. Paul Guardian Ins. v. United States, 117 F. Supp. 2d 1349 (S.D. Fla. 2000)…d had not intended to release the United States at the time of the November 5, 1997 Release. (Jacknin Affidavit ¶¶ 5, 8). The November 5, 1997 Release cannot be reformed in the absence of mutual mistake. Newman v. Metropolitan Dade County, 576 So.2d 1352, 1353 (Fla. Dist.Ct.App.1991); American Fire & Indem. Corp. v. State Farm Automobile Ins. Co., 483 So.2d 122, 123 (Fla.App.1986). Generally, the question of intent is a matter left to the trier of fact for determination. See American Fire,…
Authorities Cited
- Canal Ins. Co. v. Hartford Ins. Co., 415 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Am. Fire & Indem. Corp. v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co., 483 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)