Vicente L. Morta Fhp, Inc. v. Korea Insurance Corp.

We consider whether, under Guam law, a release signed as part of a settlement of claims arising from an automobile accident bars recovery for after-discovered injuries.

Facts

On November 26, 1982, appellee Vicente Morta suffered a collision that damaged his 1976 Mazda station wagon and caused him bodily injury. According to Morta, the car was “a total loss.” 1 Reporter’s Transcript (RT) at 39. Morta himself was knocked unconscious and taken by ambulance to the emergency room at Guam Memorial Hospital. After treating Morta, the attending physician assured him that he was fine and could go home. Afterwards, Morta continued to have pain in his muscles, chin and chest. He was treated three days later by a second physician at the Seventh Day Adventist Clinic, who also told him he was fine and the pain would eventually subside.

Morta sought compensation for his losses from appellant Korea Insurance Corporation (KIC), which insured the driver who had caused the accident. Morta was directed to Bemabe Santa Maria, a claims adjuster. Morta and Santa Maria happened to be from the same area of the Philippines and conversed in their native tongues, Tagalog and Ilocano. Morta testified that…

dissenting:

In Chase Manhattan Bank v. Gems-By-Gordon, Inc., 649 F.2d 710, 712 (9th Cir.1981), this court said:

No adherence to such a statement of policy can be discerned in the majority opinion, and I accordingly register my respectful dissent.

In the first place, the issues presented in this litigation were basically factual. The majority believes that the evidence presented did not justify the recovery awarded to the plaintiff, and the “Discussion” section of the opinion contains a superb analysis of the facts from the standpoint of the defendant. However, the trial court, in its denial of a defense summary judgment motion, the jury, in its verdict, and the United States District Court for the District of Guam, in its opinion of affirmance, all concluded that there was “another side to the coin” and that the evidence justified a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

Based upon my own examination of the record, I am convinced that a reasonable jury could have concluded that:

(a) Morta’s comparatively limited education was a disadvantage to him in his dealings with the much more sophisticated and experienced Santa Maria, and that the latter took undue advantage of this…

840 F.2d 1452 Vicente L. MORTA; FHP, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. KOREA INSURANCE CORP., Defendant-Appellant. No. 86-2643. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted May 14, 1987. Decided Feb. 26, 1988. Thomas C. Sterling, Klemm, Blair, Sterling & Johnson, Agana, Guam, for defendant-appellant. Peter F. Perez and Daniel R. Del Priore, Agana, Guam, for plaintiffs-appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Guam, Appellate Division. Before WIGGINS * and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges, and GRAY, ** District Judge. KOZINSKI, Circuit Judge: 1 We consider whether, under Guam law, a release signed as part of a settlement of claims arising from an automobile accident bars recovery for after-discovered injuries. Facts 2 On November 26, 1982, appellee Vicente Morta suffered a collision that damaged his 1976 Mazda station wagon and caused him bodily injury. According to Morta, the car was "a total loss." 1 Reporter's Transcript (RT) at 39. Morta himself was knocked unconscious and taken by ambulance to the emergency room at Guam Memorial Hospital. After treating Morta, the attending physician assured him that he was fine and could go…