Cline

Concurring. — Although unnecessary to our disposition here, I feel compelled to echo the concerns expressed by my colleagues in other districts regarding the use of “overly broad, loose terms in release agreements.” (Neverkovec v. Fredericks (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 337, 354 [ 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 856 ]; see Hess v. Ford Motor Company (2002) 27 Cal.4th 516, 530 [ 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 220 , 41 P.3d 46 ].)

The widespread use of global “all other persons” releases raises policy concerns as to fairness. (See Rodriguez v. Oto (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1031 [ 151 Cal.Rptr.3d 667 ].) As we see here, the language of the release may not be given much attention; by signing, a plaintiff (such as Ronald Lee Cline) may give up rights he did not mean to give up, with resulting unfortunate consequences. “A stranger to the release may receive a windfall, i.e., an excuse from liability the law would otherwise require him to bear; the plaintiff may be deprived of a recovery to which he would otherwise be entitled, and which is necessary to make him whole; and this loss in turn may force the plaintiff to pursue — and the courts to entertain — the less certain and more burdensome remedy of a malpractice action…

Plaintiff Ronald Lee Cline was severely injured when his motorcycle collided with a turning car driven by a teenager with a provisional license. He settled with the driver and the driver’s parents for their $100,000 insurance policy limit. Cline executed a release that released the driver and his parents “and any other person, corporation, association, or partnership responsible in any manner or degree” for the accident.

Cline subsequently sued defendant Berniece Delores Homuth, the driver’s grandmother and the sole adult in the car with him at the time of the collision, for negligent supervision. Homuth raised the release as an affirmative defense. She moved for summary judgment; the trial court denied the motion. A court trial followed, centering on the validity of the release and whether Homuth was an intended third party beneficiary of the release. Relying on Rodriguez v. Oto (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 1020 [ 151 Cal.Rptr.3d *702 667 ] (Rodriguez), the trial court found the release “unambiguously expresses a mutual intent to benefit a class of persons of which [Homuth] is a member” and that Homuth was entitled to enforce it.

Cline appeals from the judgment in favor of…

Filed 2/27/15 Cline v. Homouth CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Calaveras) ----

RONALD LEE CLINE, C073999

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. CV35615)

v.

BERNIECE DELORES HOMUTH,

Defendant and Respondent.

Plaintiff Ronald Lee Cline was severely injured when his motorcycle collided with a turning car driven by a teenager with a provisional license. He settled with the driver and the driver’s parents for their $100,000 insurance policy limit. Cline executed a release that released the driver and his parents “and any other person, corporation, association, or partnership responsible in any manner or degree” for the accident. Cline subsequently sued defendant Berniece Delores Homuth, the driver’s…