RM & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING, INC. A/A/O CARLOS SOTES
v.
CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION
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.
This per curiam opinion affirms a lower court decision regarding the interpretation and enforceability of a release or settlement agreement. The court applies established contract law principles to determine the parties' intent based on the plain language of the written instrument.
The court affirms the lower court's decision, holding that settlement agreements and releases are contractual in nature and must be interpreted according to contract law. The plain language of the written agreement is the best evidence of the parties' intent, and absent true ambiguity susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, extrinsic evidence cannot be used to contradict or modify the agreement.
[1] A settlement agreement is contractual in nature and is interpreted and governed by the principles of contract law, requiring that absent ambiguity susceptible to more tha…
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 intelligence“Because a settlement agreement is contractual in nature, it is interpreted and governed by contract law”
Court cited Munoz Hnos regarding the nature and interpretation of settlement agreements
The opinion does not explicitly state the underlying facts, as it is a per curiam affirmance citing controlling precedent. The court references a sett…
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 Release Of Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Hurt v. Leatherby Ins. Co., 380 So. 2d 432, 433 (Fla. 1980) (observing: “As with contracts generally, the language used in the release is the best evidence of the parties' intent”); Munoz Hnos, S.A. v. Editorial Televisa Intern., S.A., 121 So. 3d 100, 103 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (observing: “Because a settlement agreement is contractual in nature, it is interpreted and governed by contract law”). See also Dirico v. Redland Estates, Inc., 154 So. 3d 355, 357 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (holding: “In the absence of some ambiguity, the intent of the parties to a written contract must be ascertained from the words used in the contract, without resort to extrinsic evidence”; further observing that a “true ambiguity does not exist [in a contract] merely because [the] contract can possibly be interpreted in more than one manner” but “only when contractual language ‘is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation’”) (quotations omitted); Bird Lakes Dev. Corp. v. Meruelo, 626 So. 2d 234, 237 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (holding:
“The parol evidence rule ‘serves as a shield to protect a valid, complete and unambiguous written instrument from any verbal assault that would contradict, add to, or subtract from it, or affect its construction’”) (quoting Sears v. James Talcott, Inc., 174 So. 2d 776, 778 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965));
Patco Transp., Inc. v. Estupinan, 917 So. 2d 922, 923 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (holding release signed by employee in settlement of negligence action against his employer and others, releasing employer from “any and all past, present or future claims, demands, obligations, actions, causes of action, rights, damages, costs, losses of services, expenses and compensation of any nature whatsoever, whether based on a tort, contract or other theory of recovery, which the Plaintiff now has, or which may hereafter accrue or otherwise be acquired, on account of, or may in any way grow out of, or which are the subject of the Complaint. . .” released employer from employee’s subsequent petition for worker’s compensation benefits).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Nolan Hurt and Florence Hurt v. Leatherby Ins. Co., 380 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 1980)
- Sears v. James Talcott, Inc., 174 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Bird Lakes Dev. Corp. v. Homero Meruelo, 626 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Patco Transp. v. Estupinan, 917 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- MUÑOZ Hnos, S.A. v. Editorial Televisa Int'l, S.A., 121 So. 3d 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)
- Dirico v. Redland Ests., Inc., 154 So. 3d 355 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)