Court Opinion

ID: 9642092
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:48:06.760215+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:42.964838
License: Public Domain

CAMPBELL, Justice,
concurring.
We should not attempt to draw an artificial distinction between this case and the decisions in Huckabee and Metroflight merely to avoid an admission that those decisions were erroneous. The claims in those cases were as uncertain as the claims in this case. Except for uncertainty there would obviously have been no compromise and settlement. This decision establishes a rule of law that whether a settlement with a defendant will be deemed an election barring suit against another defendant, upon facts inconsistent with those asserted to obtain the settlement, will be ultimately determined by this Court’s opinion as to the degree of uncertainty as to the facts inconsistently asserted.
Seamans Oil Co. v. Guy was not decided upon the law of elections but was decided *855upon a clear-cut equitable estoppel. This Court in Huckabee followed a dictum quotation from Ruling Case Law which is incompatible with recognized principles of Texas procedure and policy. A party may plead and prove totally inconsistent claims and defenses in Texas. Deal v. Madison, 576 S.W.2d 409 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1978, writ ref’d n. r. e.); Rule 48, T.R.C.P.
Settlement agreements are highly favored in the law because they are a means of amicably resolving doubts and preventing lawsuits. Miller v. Republic National Life Insurance Company, 559 F.2d 426 (5th Cir. 1977); Republic National Life Insurance Company v. Sussman, 564 F.2d 98 (5th Cir. 1977); Alvarez v. Employers’ Fire Insurance Company, 531 S.W.2d 218 (Tex.Civ.App.—Amarillo 1975, no writ): Coastal States Gas Producing Company v. Apollo Industrial X-ray, Inc., 467 S.W.2d 239 (Tex.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi 1971, no writ): Fidelity-Southern Fire Insurance Company v. Whitman, 422 S.W.2d 552 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1967, writ ref’d n. r. e.); State v. Cook, 407 S.W.2d 876 (Tex.Civ.App.—Waco 1966, writ ref’d n. r. e.); Pearce v. Texas Employers Insurance Association, 403 S.W.2d 493 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1966, writ ref’d n. r. e.) motion for rehearing overruled per curiam, 412 S.W.2d 647 (Tex.1967).
Proper regard for these principles compels a conclusion that a mere compromise and settlement of a claim asserting facts inconsistent to those asserted in a claim against a different defendant should not bar the latter claim. The contrary conclusion, in effect, compels a party to proceed to final judgment against two or more defendants instead of settling with a defendant who is desirous of settlement. This would not diminish assertion of inconsistent claims but would merely diminish settlements.
We should concede our error and expressly overrule Huckabee and hold there is no election until final judgment on the merits.