Covenant Not To Sue

117 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Mannington Mills, Inc. v. Congoleum Indus., Inc.
  610 F.2d 1059· 3d Cir.· 1979-08-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while the district court did not err in finding insufficient evidence of conspiracy for summary judgment, it erred by ruling before the plaintiff had a fair opportunity for discovery.
• Penza v. Neckles
  340 So. 2d 1210· Fla. 4th DCA· 1976-12-17 ·cited 8×
  Penza sued Resnick and Neckles for breach of contract and obtained a judgment against both as joint and several obligors. Penza later executed a general release document explicitly excluding Neckles and reserving all rights against him in exchange for $2,500 from Resnick. The cou
• Richard's Lumber & Supply Co. v. United States Gypsum Co.
  545 F.2d 18· 7th Cir.· 1976-09-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff's antitrust claim was barred by a covenant not to sue executed in a prior class action settlement.
• Scoggin v. United States
  444 F.2d 74· 10th Cir.· 1971-06-22 ·cited 8×
  A covenant not to sue an employee, under Oklahoma law, also releases the employer when the employer's liability is solely based on respondeat superior.
• Green v. Aerosol Research Co.
  374 F.2d 791· 7th Cir.· 1967-02-17 ·cited 8×
  The settlement agreement did not grant rights under a subsequently issued patent (Green '877) because the contract language explicitly limited rights to specifically named patents.
• Petroleum Carrier Corp. v. Hattie Carter and Bessie Threatt
  233 F.2d 402· 5th Cir.· 1956-05-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a covenant not to sue one joint tortfeasor does not release the other, and that issues of negligence and proximate cause are for the jury.
• Schumacher v. Harry Rosenthal d.b.a. The Stevens Hat Co.
  226 F.2d 946· 7th Cir.· 1955-10-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial judge correctly reduced the jury's verdict by the amount plaintiff received from a covenant not to sue with a joint tortfeasor, and that the jury instructions regarding agency were sufficient.
• City OF Amarillo v. Olive Copeland
  218 F.2d 49· 5th Cir.· 1954-12-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the city's negligence in failing to provide adequate barricades was a proximate cause of the employee's death, and the settlement with the driver did not release the city but rather entitled the city to contribution, which was properly accounted for by reducin
• Reconstr. Fin. Corp. v. Barrett
  131 F.2d 745· 7th Cir.· 1942-12-04 ·cited 8×
  A partial compromise of a judgment against one liable party, with express reservation of rights, does not bar a separate action against another party also liable for the same obligation.
• Midland W. Corp. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.
  911 F.2d 1141· 5th Cir.· 1990-09-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the FDIC's motion to reform the agreed judgment was timely filed and should have been granted because the judgment did not reflect the parties' mutual intent.
• Flowers v. Tandy Corp.
  773 F.2d 585· 4th Cir.· 1985-09-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in submitting the case to the jury on theories of civil liability under 18 U.S.C. § 2520 for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2512 or for aiding and abetting illegal wiretapping, as the evidence was insufficient and the statutes did not suppo
• Riske v. Truck Ins. Exch.
  490 F.2d 1079· 8th Cir.· 1974-01-16 ·cited 6×
  An insurer may be liable in excess of policy limits for bad faith failure to settle, and the jury's finding of bad faith was supported by sufficient evidence.
• Bittner v. Little
  270 F.2d 286· 3d Cir.· 1959-09-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that under Pennsylvania's conflict of laws rules, the law of Virginia, where the accident occurred, governs the effect of the release, and Virginia law dictates that releasing one joint tortfeasor releases all.
• Richter v. Hoglund
  132 F.2d 748· 7th Cir.· 1943-01-20 ·cited 5×
  The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence, refusing to strike hospital records, or in its damage awards, and that issues raised for the first time on appeal would not be considered.
• McCALLA v. E.C. Kenyon Constr. Co., Inc.
  183 So. 3d 1192· Fla. 1st DCA· 2016-01-15 ·cited 4×
  The McCallas won a judgment against a construction company for breach of contract and warranty violations, then sued to recover assets the company fraudulently transferred to avoid satisfying the judgment. The trial court dismissed the fraudulent transfer action, but the appellat
• W. Grp. Nurseries, Inc. v. Ergas
  167 F.3d 1354· 11th Cir.· 1999-02-12 ·cited 4×
  Western Group Nurseries purchased a promissory note (the Wraparound Note) at a foreclosure sale and sued limited partner Martin Ergas to collect his pro rata share of the debt. Ergas defended by claiming that a parenthetical provision in the original security agreement constitute
• The Lubrizol Corp. v. Exxon Corp.
  957 F.2d 1302· 5th Cir.· 1992-04-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that Lubrizol's breach of the covenant not to sue was obvious, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in sanctioning Lubrizol for failing to comply with discovery orders by accepting Exxon's proof of attorney's fees.
• Schneider v. Emanuel Revici, M.D.
  817 F.2d 987· 2d Cir.· 1987-04-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that express assumption of risk is an available affirmative defense to a medical malpractice action under New York law, and if proven, would totally bar recovery.
• Charles McARTHUR Dairies, Inc. v. Morgan
  449 So. 2d 998· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-05-16 ·cited 4×
  In this wrongful death suit, Charles McArthur Dairies appeals the trial court's refusal to setoff a settlement paid by co-defendant Florida Power & Light from the jury verdict. The court affirmed, holding that although the settlement was technically a release (not a Mary Carter a
• Perdue v. Sears
  694 F.2d 66· 4th Cir.· 1982-11-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a release of one joint tortfeasor does not release another under the applicable Virginia statute in effect at the time of the settlement.
• SUN First Nat'l Bank OF Melbourne ad litem of the Est. of Ralph E. Balch & Bess D. Balch v. Lael N. Batchelor
  308 So. 2d 649· Fla. 4th DCA· 1975-02-28 ·cited 4×
  A release of one tortfeasor discharges all other tortfeasors liable for the same tort under the common law rule, which still applies in Florida because the statutory limitation in Section 768.041(1) to 'property damage to any person' does not include conversion actions.
• The Glidden Co. v. Zuckerman
  245 So. 2d 639· Fla. 3d DCA· 1971-03-16 ·cited 4×
  The Glidden Company appealed a judgment on the pleadings dismissing its action against individual comakers of a promissory note after the company settled with the corporate comaker in bankruptcy. The court held that the case presents a factual question regarding whether the indiv
• Munson v. United States
  380 F.2d 976· 6th Cir.· 1967-08-04 ·cited 4×
  A covenant not to sue an employee for the full limits of his insurance policy, with express reservation of rights against the United States, does not release the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act when the United States has no right of indemnity against its employee.
• Miller v. Panossian
  88 So. 2d 749· Fla.· 1956-07-13 ·cited 4×
  This case addresses whether a "Covenant Not to Sue" executed in favor of one joint tortfeasor legally functions as a "release" that discharges the other joint tortfeasor from liability. The Florida Supreme Court held that such a covenant does not operate as a release, allowing th
• Bryan v. Creaves
  138 F.2d 377· 7th Cir.· 1943-10-28 ·cited 4×
  Agreements that constitute a full settlement and release of claims against some joint tort-feasors, even with an attempted reservation of rights against others, operate as a release of all joint tort-feasors under Illinois law.
• Windstar Club, Inc. v. WS Realty, Inc.
  886 So. 2d 986· Fla. 2d DCA· 2004-09-10 ·cited 3×
  The court held that a covenant not to sue bars negligent misrepresentation claims, but not fraudulent misrepresentation claims, and that a general release does not bar claims that had not yet accrued.
• Anchor Motor Freight, Inc. v. Int'l Bhd. OF Teamsters
  700 F.2d 1067· 6th Cir.· 1983-02-25 ·cited 3×
  The court held that res judicata and collateral estoppel did not bar Anchor's claim for the period after the first show cause hearing, and that the Union's counterclaim for attorney fees was not barred by Alyeska. The court also affirmed the denial of Anchor's discovery extension
• Stephen Bodzo Realty, Inc. v. Willits Int'l Corp.
  405 So. 2d 269· Fla. 4th DCA· 1981-10-28 ·cited 3×
  Stephen Bodzo Realty sued for consulting fees against multiple defendants. After settling with Willits International and its president for partial payment, Bodzo attempted to continue suit against the remaining defendants (Licron and Siemens). The court held that under Florida la
• In re Est. OF Minnie Weltner v. Tolton
  154 Fla. 292· Fla.· 1944-03-17 ·cited 3×
  Herman Ulitzsch appealed the dismissal of his petition seeking removal of W. J. Tolton as administrator of his sister's estate and an accounting for $15,000 in U.S. Government bonds. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that the county judge's court had jurisdiction to hea
• Gustav Renny v. Erikah Bertoloti
  252 So. 3d 761· Fla. 4th DCA· 2018-07-25 ·cited 2×
  A settlement reached under Florida's offer of judgment statute is enforceable as a consent judgment and is not rendered unenforceable by a separate settlement agreement between other parties that requires dismissal of the settling defendant, where the settling defendant was not a
• Harris Corp. v. Fed. Express Corp.
  670 F. Supp. 2d 1306· M.D. Fla.· 2009-08-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a qualified covenant not to sue, coupled with the patentee's retention of rights related to inequitable conduct and the substantial similarity between asserted and unasserted patents, was insufficient to divest the court of subject matter jurisdiction over the
• Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Am. Yachts, Ltd.
  492 F. Supp. 2d 1379· S.D. Fla.· 2007-06-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that an excess insurer's bad faith claim against a primary insurer is derivative of the insured's claim and is barred if the insured has been released from all liability, extinguishing the underlying claim and the possibility of an excess judgment.
• Creech v. Oral Roberts
  908 F.2d 75· 6th Cir.· 1990-07-13 ·cited 2×
  Defendants waived the defense of personal jurisdiction by failing to seek dismissal in a timely fashion, and should not be allowed to raise it after an adverse liability determination.
• Berry v. Peterson
  887 F.2d 635· 5th Cir.· 1989-11-08 ·cited 2×
  The dissenting judge would reverse and remand for a new trial, disagreeing with the majority's decision to render a verdict for the defendants.
• Angus J. De Pinto v. Hjalmar B. Landoe
  475 F.2d 1123· 9th Cir.· 1973-02-12 ·cited 2×
  Settlement agreements with Provident, including covenants not to sue, do not preclude De Pinto from seeking recovery from Landoe and Sabo on a subrogation theory.
• Thompson v. Haynes
  249 So. 2d 69· Fla. 1st DCA· 1971-06-10 ·cited 2×
  Thompson sued both the operator and owner of a vehicle that struck his car. After obtaining judgment against the operator (Deloris Haynes) for $89,750, he then sued the owner (M. J. Haynes), who was the operator's husband and co-owner. The court held Thompson was barred by res ju
• Anne Brennan Nalle v. The First Nat'l Bank OF Baltimore
  412 F.2d 881· 4th Cir.· 1969-07-10 ·cited 2×
  A settlement agreement, supported by adequate consideration and entered into by an authorized representative, bars a claim to the principal of an inter vivos trust.
• Pinkowski v. Coglay
  347 F.2d 411· 7th Cir.· 1965-05-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Mohawk was not liable because Keefe was neither its agent in unloading the fish nor was Mohawk engaged in a joint venture with Keefe and Arnel.
• Hortense Cotter v. McKINNEY
  309 F.2d 447· 7th Cir.· 1962-10-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant's deliberate and repeated references to insurance during closing arguments, intended to prejudice the jury, constituted reversible error.
• Simpson v. Will L. Townsley
  283 F.2d 743· 10th Cir.· 1960-10-28 ·cited 2×
  A covenant not to sue, coupled with a hold harmless agreement that protects the employee from indirect liability to their employer, constitutes a complete exoneration of the employee, thereby removing the foundation for imputing negligence to the employer under the doctrine of re
• Buck Glass Co. v. Hofferbert
  176 F.2d 250· 4th Cir.· 1949-07-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the partial recovery of previously deducted royalty payments, made pursuant to an agreement and court order, constituted taxable income in the year of recovery.
• Essington v. Parish
  164 F.2d 725· 7th Cir.· 1947-11-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant failed to prove accord and satisfaction or that the instruments executed with Mayo and Crandall constituted a release of claims against them, and that the prior New York suit did not bar the current action due to lack of inconsistency.
• Kan. City S. Ry. Co. v. McDANIEL
  131 F.2d 89· 8th Cir.· 1942-10-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a stack of poles can constitute an attractive nuisance as a matter of law and that a covenant not to sue one joint tortfeasor does not release others under Arkansas law.
• United States Fire Ins. v. Mikes
  576 F. Supp. 2d 1303· M.D. Fla.· 2007-10-16 ·cited 1×
  The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, granting summary judgment for the plaintiff, U.S. Fire, and denying the defendants' motions. The court declared U.S. Fire not liable under its policies for any portion of the settlement.
• Overseas Private Inv. Corp. v. Metro. Dade Cnty.
  1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9823· S.D. Fla.· 1993-05-27 ·cited 1×
  The court denied Dade County's motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial, finding sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict and damages award.
• United States v. Pepper's Steel & Alloys, Inc.
  658 F. Supp. 1160· S.D. Fla.· 1987-04-23 ·cited 1×
  The court granted the plaintiff's motion for entry of a consent decree, approving the settlement agreement between the parties regarding environmental cleanup at the Pepper's Steel site.
• Cbre, Inc. v. Didiergroup, LLC
  Fla. 6th DCA· 2026-03-13
  A trial court must grant a setoff when a plaintiff has settled identical claims against one defendant and seeks recovery of the same damages from another defendant, as required by Florida Statutes sections 768.041(2) and 46.015(2).
• W. Botanicals FL, LLC v. Morse
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-05-19
  A motion for attorneys' fees under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 is premature if filed before a final judgment has been entered as to all parties or claims, or if the court has not expressly determined there is no just reason for delay under Rule 54(b).
• Moussy Salem
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-09-27
  The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, granting the application for discovery assistance under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 and denying the respondent's motion to dismiss and motion for stay and costs.
• NEW Enter. Assocs. 14, L.P. v. Rich
  Del. Ch.· 2023-03-09
  The Delaware Court of Chancery held that the plaintiffs stated viable claims for breach of contract (Count I) and tortious interference with contract (Count II). The court dismissed claims based on breach of the duty of disclosure related to the Second Offering (Count III) and th