Section 7.15 Effect of Release on Third Parties

• Library: Settling Cases 2014

As with any contract, a release may impact nonparties and, indeed, that often may be a primary objective of the bulk of the settlement documents.

While the common-law rule that the release of one joint tortfeasor releases the others has been abrogated by statute, a claimant may nevertheless secure only one satisfaction of damages. See:

• Slankard v. Thomas,912 S.W.2d 619, 624 (Mo. App. S.D. 1995)

• Freeman v. Myers,774 S.W.2d 892, 894 (Mo. App. W.D. 1989)
• Hampton v. Safeway Sanitation Servs., Inc.,725 S.W.2d 605, 611 (Mo. App. E.D. 1987)

Therefore, what the claimant is releasing is as important as whom the claimant is releasing. For example, a document common to bodily injury claims is a partial release executed by a claimant upon receipt of advance payments, often in the form of medical bills, lost wages, or property damage. The insurance carrier’s goal is control of the claimant in hopes of early settlement, but if that is not achieved, the carrier will be entitled to an offset in the total amount paid against any judgment. See, e.g., Abbey v. Heins,546 S.W.2d 553 (Mo. App. E.D. 1977). Nevertheless, a general release that purports to release all tortfeasors from all liability and claims for damages still will be upheld. See:

• Rudisill v. Lewis, 796 S.W.2d 124 (Mo. App. W.D. 1990) (citing Ellis v. Reisenbichler,712 S.W.2d 468, 469 (Mo App. E.D. 1986))

• Clark v. Booth,660 S.W.2d 316, 317–18 (Mo. App. W.D. 1983)

• Liberty v. J.A. Tobin Constr. Co.,512 S.W.2d 886, 890 (Mo. App. W.D. 1974)

When less than a full release of all known and unknown tortfeasors for all known and unknown injuries is the objective, specificity is urged despite statutory and appellate assistance to some unthinking claimants. See, e.g., § 537.060, RSMo 2000, and Everhart v. Crabb,775 S.W.2d 335 (Mo. App. W.D. 1989), in which the court upheld modification of a general release of all claims against all persons to allow a minor’s next friend to pursue a claim against a person who was discovered post-release to be the actual driver of the vehicle in which the minor was injured.

A plaintiff should avoid a general release unless that is the intended result. In Slankard, 912 S.W.2d 619, the plaintiff was a passenger in defendant Thomas’s vehicle when it collided with a car driven by defendant Woosley. Id. at 629. The plaintiff filed suit against both parties. Id. The plaintiff settled with Thomas and his insurer and executed a release that included language that...