Court Opinion

ID: 9442845
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 19:01:39.48676+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:46:34.839556
License: Public Domain

DUFFY, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
The majority opinion is based upon the presumption that plaintiff’s president, Man-gold, had some information which he in fact did not possess. Plaintiff is held guilty of something or other for not preventing defendant’s general counsel from negotiating a settlement with Mrs. Wil-ken. If plaintiff’s president, a layman, was presumed to know the law, so too was the defendant’s general counsel, a lawyer.
After an independent investigation of the facts, defendant and its general counsel endeavored to cover what it considered its most dangerous potential liability by seeking out Mrs. Wilken and effecting a *311compromise settlement on a potential claim for $15,000. Defendant had considered and rejected the possibility that Mrs. Wil-ken might have a claim under the Illinois Workmen’s Compensation Act. The proposed settlement was defendant’s own idea and was in no way induced by the plaintiff or its president. The defendant was not misled by anything that plaintiff’s president, Mangold, said or did. Nevertheless this court adopts the very unrealistic view that Mangold was under a duty to speak out and give the defendant information which as a matter of fact he did not possess.
The settlement between Delta Airlines and Mrs. Wilken had been consummated for some six months prior to the time that she filed her claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. It was a great surprise to both the general counsel of defendant and to the president of plaintiff when an, award was made to Mrs. Wilken and later sustained by the courts notwithstanding her prior settlement with Delta.
On the evening of the day when Man-gold learned of Wilken’s death, he went to the Wilken home, but found Mrs. Wilken was in a state of shock. He visited her again the next night and told her that the plaintiff wanted to do something for the family on a voluntary basis, and the company thereafter did send Mrs. Wilken a weekly check for $50 until some $750 or $800 had been paid, which was the equivalent of the funeral bill. Mangold did later learn of Delta’s offer to Mrs. Wilken, and as a matter of .friendly advice to the widow of one of his company’s employees, did suggest that she hold out for $10,000, but all that was done was in the utmost good faith. Delta knew nothing of Mangold’s conversations with Mrs. Wil-ken and in no way relied upon them. The defense of estoppel fails. Delta did not change its position in reliance on some act or representation of the plaintiff or Man-gold. 31 C.J.S., Estoppel, § 70, p. 267. Likewise there was no waiver, as in law a waiver is an intentional waiver of a known right with knowledge that such right existed. 56 Am.Juris., p. 102. The rule is that waiver of a right or privilege is not presumed and will not be implied from slight circumstances. 56 Am.Juris., p. 123.
Mrs. Wilken received more than that to which she was entitled, but this was due to a mistake in defendant’s legal analysis. I think the judgment should be reversed.