FRANK C. CABALLERO, APPELLANT,
v.
PHOENIX AMERICAN HOLDINGS, INC., ET AL., 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.
Frank Caballero appealed a summary judgment ruling that a General Release signed as part of his termination package with Phoenix American Warranty Company exonerated five corporate defendants (affiliates of his former employer) from all claims in his six-count complaint. The Florida appellate court affirmed the dismissal of five counts but reversed as to the tortious interference claim, finding that the release did not cover interference with a subsequent employment relationship.
The General Release properly exonerates the defendants from five of the six counts (retaliatory discharge, breach of compensation agreement, fraudulent inducement, unjust enrichment, and promissory estoppel) because those claims relate to Caballero's employment, termination, or compensation. However, the release does not exonerate the defendants from the tortious interference claim because that claim pertains to interference with a subsequent employment relationship occurring after the release was executed and outside the scope of Caballero's employment with Phoenix American Warranty Company.
[1] A general release, by its terms, may be limited to specific types of claims, such as those relating to employment, termination, or compensation.
[2] A general release does not bar claims that arise from conduct occurring after the execution of the release and that are unrelated to the employment covered by the release…
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“Rather the release is limited by its terms as follows: (a) The released claims consist of and are limited to any and all Claims that in any way relate to: (i) employment of [Caballero] with Company, or the termination thereof, or Claims for compensation, bonuses, commissions, lost wages, or unused accrued vacation or sick pay.”
Establishes the actual limited scope of the release, despite its generic title
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCaballero executed a General Release as part of a termination package with his former employer, Phoenix American Warranty Company, Inc. The release wa…
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 Scope Of Release cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by a counter-plaintiff, Frank C. Caballero, from a final summary judgment finding the language of a General Release executed by Caballero exonerates the appellees — five third-party corporate defendants: Phoenix American Holdings, Inc.; Phoenix American Insurance Group, Inc.; Phoenix American Administrators, Inc.; Insurance Adjustment Services, Inc.; and Wynn’s Extended Care, Inc. — on a six-count complaint brought by Caballero against them for (1) retaliatory discharge and violations of the Florida Private Sector Whistleblower’s Act; (2) breach of Compensation Agreement; (3) fraudulent inducement with respect to the Compensation Agreement; (4) unjust enrichment; (5) promissory es-toppel; and (6) tortious interference with a business relationship. On de novo review, we find the release does not exonerate the appellees on the last of these counts. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The release was executed as part of a termination package between Caballero and his former employer, Phoenix American Warranty Company, Inc.1 The releas-ees include Phoenix American Warranty Company, Inc., and its affiliates, which include the appellees. The title of the release, “General Release,” is a misnomer. Rather the release is limited by its terms as follows:
(a) The released claims consist of and are limited to any and all Claims that in any way relate to: (i) employment of [Caballero] with Company, or the termination thereof, or Claims for compensation, bonuses, commissions, lost wages, or unused accrued vacation or sick pay.
As the descriptions of the first five claims above indicate, and a careful examination of the allegations will confirm, each of these counts relate to Caballero’s employment, termination, or compensation. Therefore, the trial court properly granted summary judgment as to these counts of the third-party complaint. See AXA Equitable Life Ins. Co. v. Gelpi, 12 So.3d 783, 785 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Hold v. Manzini, 736 So.2d 138, 141 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). The appellees’ tortious interference claim, however, plainly relates to a subsequent employment relationship Caballero had *108with Road America Motor Club, Inc., which he claims was terminated by Road America as a direct result of intentional and unjustifiable interference by the appel-lees. Because the allegations in this count are alleged to have occurred after the release was executed and pertain to actions outside of Caballero’s employment with Phoenix American Warranty Company, Inc., we reverse the final summary judgment for further proceedings on this count alone. See Plumpton v. Cont’l Acreage Dev. Co., 830 So.2d 208, 210 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (finding general release bars all claims which have matured prior to the execution of the release).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Obed Colon v. City of Riviera Beach, 299 So. 3d 28 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)…(quoting Berrios v. Orlando Reg’l Healthcare Sys., 100 So. 3d 128, 130 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012))). Under Florida law, the trial court did not err in entering summary judgment based on the unambiguous release. See Caballero v. Phoenix Am. Holdings, Inc., 79 So. 3d 106, 107 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012); AXA Equitable Life Ins. Co. v. Gelpi, 12 So. 3d 783, 786 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). Affirmed. WARNER, DAMOORGIAN and FORST, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- S. L. T. Warehouse Co. v. Wilmott Webb, 304 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1974)
- Hold v. Manzini, 736 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Plumpton v. Cont'l Acreage Dev. Co., Inc., 830 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- AXA Equitable Life Ins. Co. v. Gelpi, 12 So. 3d 783 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)