Court Opinion

ID: 9533511
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:32:20.087703+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:29:04.243896
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE CRAVEN, dissenting: This personal injury and property damage case was settled for what ultimately turns out to be something less than the specials. At the time of the settlement, neither the plaintiff nor the insurance company, acting for and on behalf of the defendant, knew nor could reasonably anticipate, the severe nature of the subsequent need for surgical procedure. The absence of such knowledge and the subsequent need for surgery is a basis for finding of a mutual mistake of fact. Such would be sufficient to set aside the release. It is interesting to note the mathematics of this settlement. The insurance company paid *5,486. The property damage of the automobile was estimated variously from *2,766 to *3,400. The medical expenses incurred prior to settlement were about *700 with an additional *100 incurred and paid within the one year after the settlement. The evidence as to loss of wages is probably insufficient to establish a dollar value on the loss, but there was a loss in this category. The surgery subsequent to the settlement appears to have been between *3,000 and *4,000. Thus, the settlement was less than the specials actually incurred by some *1,500. The settlement, as the majority opinion notes, provided at most some *2,000 for the pain and suffering — assuming nothing for the subsequent surgery. Thus, not only was the settlement inadequate, it was clearly made by the parties in the mistaken belief that no substantial subsequent medical expenses would be incurred. Such mutual mistake of fact mandates a setting aside of the release.