Opinion ID: 658820
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: was the promise to insure released?

Text: 25 Despite its promise to maintain directors and officers' liability insurance for six years after the merger, Beatrice allowed the policy to lapse in August 1986--several months before Vitkus signed the Release on January 5, 1987. Vitkus therefore had a claim for Beatrice's failure to maintain the insurance at the time he signed the Release. The district court held that the Release, which barred all claims in existence at the time of suit, whether known or unknown, operated to bar Vitkus' claim for the failure to maintain insurance. Vitkus contends this was error because a Release cannot bar an unknown claim. We disagree. 26 Any obligation that Beatrice had under the Merger Agreement and By-laws was an existing financial obligation of which Vitkus was aware when he signed the Release. Beatrice's obligation to provide insurance thus could have been released as a known financial obligation under the Release. 7