Opinion ID: 2104035
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Post-satisfaction settlement

Text: In support of a satisfaction of judgment exception, Fetick cites a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, American Cyanamid Company v. St. Louis University, 205 F.3d 1344 (8th Cir.2000). In that federal case, American Cyanamid sought declaratory judgment to bar SLU from seeking contribution from it. Id. American Cyanamidafter the state trial but before the federal casesettled with Danny for $300,000. The District Court allowed SLU to seek contribution from American Cyanamid. American Cyanamid Company v. St. Louis University, Case No. 4:94CV2483SNL (E.D. Mo, April 15, 1999). The Eighth Circuit affirmed, without opinion. 205 F.3d at 1344. The federal courts held that Danny's claim was fully extinguished by the $16 million satisfaction of judgment he received before receiving the $300,000 from American Cyanamid. The federal courts held that the $300,000 was not a true settlement: at the time American Cyanamid entered its `settlement' ... Callahan no longer had a claim to settle. Id. Cyanamid, therefore, could not claim protection against contribution-seeking tortfeasors. Id. The federal courts did not discuss the settlor-barred doctrine, let alone establish any exception to it. Moreover, the federal case is irrelevant to the settlor-barred doctrine, because neither Cyanamid nor SLU were settlors within the meaning of the settlor-barred doctrine.