OSVALDO MARTINEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
PREFERRED CARE PARTNERS, 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.
Martinez appeals summary judgment dismissing his tort claims against his former business partners. The court affirmed, holding that Martinez's claims were barred by a general release he executed prior to filing suit.
The general release unambiguously barred Martinez's claims because it covered 'all manner of claims' from 'the beginning of the world to present,' and Martinez's complaint accrued prior to execution of the release. Additionally, Martinez failed to file a reply pleading any legal theory to avoid the release.
[1] A general release is construed according to the principles governing the construction of contracts.
[2] All-encompassing language in a general release, such as "all manner of claims" from "the beginning of the world to present," fully protects a party when the alleged claim…
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“The general release in the instant case unambiguously covers 'all manner of claims' that Martinez and the companies he formerly owned 'have, had, or may have had' against the defendants 'from the beginning of the world to present.'”
Establishes the broad scope of the release language that barred Martinez's claims
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMartinez formerly owned companies that entered into a Network Risk Agreement with Preferred Care Partners (PCP) to provide medical care to Medicare-el…
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 Contract Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
Osvaldo Martinez (“Martinez”) appeals the trial court’s entry of an order granting final summary judgment in favor of Preferred Care Partners, Inc. (“PCP”), Preferred Care Partners Medical Group, Inc., Preferred Care Partners Holding Corp., Joseph L. Carancho, and Justo Luis Pozo (collectively, “the defendants”). We affirm.
*1118The record reflects that Martinez previously owned companies that entered into a Network Risk Agreement with POP. According to the agreement, POP was to provide Martinez’s companies with Medicare-eligible members in its healthcare plan; Martinez’s companies would provide medical care for those members; and the parties would split the capitation from the federal government. Martinez sued the defendants on October 5, 2012 for allegedly committing various tortious acts. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment as to all of Martinez’s claims based, in part, on the general release Martinez executed on January 18, 2012, releasing the defendants from the claims alleged in his complaint.
A general release is construed according to the principles governing the construction of contracts. Plumpton v. Cont’l Acreage Dev. Co., 830 So.2d 208, 210 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). The general release in the instant case unambiguously covers “all manner of claims” that Martinez and the companies he formerly owned “have, had, or may have had” against the defendants “from the beginning of the world to present.” Such all-encompassing language fully protects the defendants, as it is undisputed that the claims in Martinez’s complaint accrued pri- or to the execution of the general release. See AXA Equitable Life Ins. Co. v. Gelpi, 12 So.3d 783, 786 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Brewer v. Laborfinders of Tampa, 944 So.2d 1102, 1103 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).
It is also undisputed that Martinez failed to file a reply containing any legal theory that could result in the avoidance of the defendants’ general release. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.100 (“If an answer or third-party answer contains an affirmative defense and the opposing party seeks to avoid it, the opposing party must file a reply containing the avoidance.”); CJM Fin., Inc. v. Castillo Grand, LLC, 40 So.3d 863, 864 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (affirming summary judgment “because the clear language of a release barred the claim and [the plaintiff] failed, to properly plead any legal theory that would have avoided the release”). Accordingly, the trial court properly entered final summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hearns v. Sch. Bd. of Polk Cnty. (M.D. Fla. 2024)…Board retaliated against Hearns. ANALYSIS The undisputed facts establish that Hearns released the claims she asserts in this action. A release of claims is interpreted in accord with Florida contract law. Martinez v. Preferred Care Partners, Inc., 223 So. 3d 1117, 1118 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). If 3 Hearns offers no record material to support this allegation, but Hearns “assume[s]" that the employee acted with "discriminatory and/or retaliatory animus." (Doc. 23 ¶ 26) an agreement is unambiguous, “the actual lang…
Authorities Cited
- 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)
- CJM Fin., Inc. v. Castillo Grand, LLC, 40 So. 3d 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Mercer v. State, 944 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Brewer v. Laborfinders OF Tampa, 944 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)