Opinion
CV146041669S
01-05-2016
Robert Rodriguez v. Energy Brands, Inc. et al
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
William B. Rush, Judge Trial Referee.
The defendant has filed a Motion to Enforce a settlement agreement reached between the attorneys representing all parties. The plaintiff now refuses to consummate the settlement asserting that the authority to settle the case was based upon the fact that the settlement figure discussed with his attorney represented the amount he would receive after payment of all medical bills, expenses and attorney fees. An evidentiary hearing was held at which both sides presented evidence.
All parties agree that the trial court has the inherent authority to summarily enforce a settlement agreement as a matter of law when the terms of the agreement are clear and unambiguous. See Audubon Parking Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Barclay & Stubbs, Inc., 225 Conn. 804, 811-12, 626 A.2d 729 (1993); Tirreno v. The Hartford, 161 Conn.App. 678, 684 (2015) (CLJ Dec. 15, 2015). The intention of the parties is a question of fact and, once determined, it is conclusive. Ballard v. Asset Recovery Management Co., 39 Conn.App. 805, 809, 667 A.2d 1298 (1996).
The plaintiff instituted the present action seeking to recover monetary damages for personal injuries sustained as a result of the ingestion of vitamin water purchased from the defendant Walmart Stores and the manufacturer and distributor of the product were also named as defendants. The plaintiff and his attorney had numerous discussions concerning the settlement of the case and the plaintiff was aware that his medical bills were paid by the State of Connecticut. There were questions raised concerning the issue of whether all the medical bills were related to the ingestion of the vitamin water and the attorney spoke with the medical providers of the plaintiff and other experts concerning that issue. At one point, the plaintiff told his attorney that he was willing to accept the then current offer of $12,000 on behalf of all the defendants just to get the matter concluded. The plaintiff then gave the attorney full settlement authority to negotiate a settlement on behalf of the plaintiff without any conditions or limitations.
The settlement authority was not limited to the sum of money that the plaintiff would receive after the payment of all expenses. Thereafter, the attorney agreed on behalf of the plaintiff to accept the sum of $18,000 in settlement of the claim against all defendants. The court finds that there was actual authority from the plaintiff to make that agreement and, therefore, there is no need to discuss the issue of apparent authority. Thus, the plaintiff " was bound to the agreement that (his) counsel had negotiated and accepted." See Tirreno v. The Hartford, supra, at 678.