Opinion ID: 27049
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Midwest's Claims as Subrogee of Williams

Text: The Court finds no error in the district court's ruling that Williams released his claim against Spartech, and therefore had no claim to assign to Midwest. Midwest presented no evidence to indicate that any of Spartech's representations led Williams to agree to a settlement and release that he otherwise would not have made. See LA. CIV. CODE art. 1955 (Error induced by fraud need not concern the cause of the obligation to vitiate consent, but it must concern a circumstance that has substantially influenced that consent.). Williams was represented by counsel in the workman's compensation proceeding who vigorously pursued his claim. Williams obviously knew there was a relationship between Adams and Spartech because he included Spartech as a defendant. Further, Williams' attorney could have ascertained the nature of the Adams/Spartech relationship without difficulty, inconvenience, or special skill. LA. CIV. CODE art. 1954 (Fraud does not vitiate consent when the party against whom the fraud was directed could have ascertained the truth without difficulty, inconvenience, or special skill.). Six years elapsed between the release and the assignment, and 10 Williams made no complaint about the release. Therefore, because Williams released any claims he might have had against Spartech, Midwest, as assignee of Williams' rights, has no claims against Spartech. Accordingly, Midwest cannot, as assignee, attach liability to Spartech through the piercing the corporate veil doctrine.