Court Opinion

ID: 9743614
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:38:36.804052+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:42.561591
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE BARRY, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for personal injuries arising out of an accident in Sterling, Illinois, asserting in the motion plaintiff’s release of all claims. At the hearing on the motion, plaintiff without having responded to the motion, merely argued that the purported “release” was “a mistake,” thereby seeking to avoid the release. The trial court refused to admit evidence of the parties’ intentions and ruled that plaintiff’s claim is barred by his release. The majority opinion reviews the evidence contained in an offer of proof and concludes that there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether plaintiff intended his indorsement of the check to be a release of all claims. I disagree. The $6,000 draft was filled out by a typewriter. The name of plaintiff as claimant was listed just below the name of defendant Schultz as insured. Just under plaintiff’s name in the same size type, next to the words “In payment of,” were the words “Any and all claims including bodily injury arising from accident of 12-12-78 in Sterling, HI.” I cannot believe that any reasonable person would interpret that statement to mean anything other than what it says; that the payment was intended to bar all personal injury claims of plaintiff arising out of the accident. A release is effective without the use. of any particular form, and in the absence of any ambiguity, there is no cause for considering parole evidence as to the intention of the parties. In my view, there is no factual issue as to whether there was a release, and the trial court did not err in dismissing the complaint. I would affirm.