Court Opinion

ID: 9673268
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:09:21.724831+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:21.191303
License: Public Domain

*30ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
We overrule the motions for rehearing filed by defendants Urrutia and Penske. In doing so, we note that the Schlumberger case1 relied on by defendants is distinguishable from the present ease.
Defendants argue that under Schlum-berger the release signed by plaintiff bars recovery. In Schlumberger, the very purpose of the release was to end the dispute about the value of the joint project, and, therefore, the plaintiffs were bound by the disclaimer of reliance on representations regarding value. Id. at 180.2 In the present case, there is evidence that there was never a dispute about the maximum limits of available insurance coverage; rather, there is evidence that both parties were mistaken about the limits of available coverage.
The general rule applies in the present case: a release is a contract, and like any other contract, is subject to avoidance on grounds such as mutual mistake. Williams v. Glash, 789 S.W.2d 261, 264 (Tex.1990).

. Schlumberger Technology Corp. v. Swanson, 959 S.W.2d 171 (1997).

. The supreme court in Schlumberger specifically emphasized that “a disclaimer of reliance ... will not always bar” a claim, and it specifically limited its holding to the facts before it. Id. at 181.