Opinion ID: 1742950
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: The Settlement Agreement Between MSD and 3D

Text: After MSD sued 3D and CDM, amongst others, for damages resulting from the tower's collapse, all parties entered into negotiations, which resulted in the Release, Covenant Not To Sue, and Global Settlement Agreement. An overview of relevant portions of the settlement agreement is worthwhile. MSD releases 3D (one of the Settling Defendants) by Item # 2, which reads in pertinent part: MSD and Allendale hereby covenant not to sue and fully and finally release the Settling Defendants ... from any and all possible, potential, or actual claims, causes of actions, demands, or damages, both known and unknown, in contract or in tort, which MSD and Allendale may have against the Settling Defendants... with regard to the facts and circumstances giving rise to the litigation known as Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District, et al. v. Camp, Dresser, McKee, et al. (the Lawsuit) .... MSD and Allendale further agree to dismiss, with prejudice, the entirety of their claims against the Settling Defendants asserted by them in the Lawsuit and to release forever the Settling Defendants ... from any liability of any kind, character, or description whatsoever which does or may result from any factual or legal assertion that arises or might arise from the Lawsuit. Similar language was employed to likewise release MSD from any claims asserted by 3D. However, during the settlement agreements, 3D and MSD apparently realized that there were outstanding claims for contract sums, and these claims might relate to acceptable work performed. The following exception was included in Item # 3 of the agreement: however, that MSD and CDM and 3D agree that to the extent contract payments which may be due CDM and 3D for acceptable work performed are unpaid, these contract claims will be resolved in the normal course. MSD agrees that it will not assert as a basis for denying payment of contract claims by CDM and 3D any of the alleged deficiencies in the design, construction, or construction contract administration for which it sought damages in the Lawsuit, which matters are hereby resolved by accord and satisfaction. 3D argues that Item # 2 operates to bar MSD from now claiming that 3D breached its contract by delivering a Surfpac warranty that was ultimately rendered worthless. MSD asserts that the present claim falls under the exception provided for in Item # 3 of the agreement, i.e. contract claims relating to contract payments for acceptable work performed.