Mitchell v. Union Central Life Insurance

Good Law
118 Cal. App. 4th 1331·13 Cal. Rptr. 3d 732·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 803·2004 Daily Journal DAR 6263·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4603
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 26, 2004B164441California3,255 words

Opinion

Opinion

Vogel, J.

Represented by two different law firms, an employee claiming discrimination and harassment filed a workers’ compensation claim and also sued her former employer for damages. The former employer—also represented by two different law firms—responded in both forums. While the former employer’s million-dollar-plus offer to settle the civil action was still open, the parties’ workers’ compensation lawyers settled the workers’ compensation claim for $57,500. After that deal was signed, sealed, and paid, the former employer again offered to settle the civil action for more than $1.1 million. The employee refused to settle, and the former employer thereafter moved for summary judgment, claiming the $57,500 paid to settle the workers’ compensation claim included the settlement of the civil action. The employee opposed the motion, explaining that no one involved in the settlement negotiations (not her, not the lawyers, not the workers’ compensation judge) intended to include the million-dollar civil action in the $57,500 settlement. Without suggesting an answer to the employee’s question—“Why would I?”—the trial court granted the motion for summary judgment. We…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.