Evanston Insurance Company v. CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON et al

Filing 103

ORDER granting 94 Defendant Clark County's Motion to Compel plaintiff's payment of the award provided by the settlement agreement, and awards attorneys' fees to defendant for the costs of this motion, signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN)

1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8
9

EVANSTON INSURANCE COMPANY,
an Illinois corporation,

CASE NO. 10-cv-5625 RBL
ORDER

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

v.
CLARK COUNTY, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

Clark County moves to compel Evanston Insurance to pay $90,164, as provided by their

16 settlement agreement. (Def.’s Mot. to Compel at 1, Dkt. #94.) In response, Evanston argues
17

that the agreement is unenforceable because the parties lacked a “meeting of the minds,” or in
the alternative, if the agreement is to be enforced, it should include a release of claims. (Pl.’s

18

Resp. at 2, Dkt. #99.) Because the Court finds that the parties entered a binding agreement, the

19 motion to compel is granted.
20
21
22

I.

BACKGROUND

This case arises from the tragic death of Vuong Quang Tran, a troubled man with mental
illness. (See Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J. at 2, Dkt. #39.) Tran had been arrested for poisoning his
neighbor’s koi pond and was detained in Clark County jail. Id. at 2, 7. Despite strong

23
24

ORDER - 1

1

indications that Mr. Tran should have been on suicide watch, he was not effectively monitored

2 and succeeded in taking his own life. Id. at 9.
3
4

After Tran’s death, his family and estate brought negligence claims against Clark
County and its medical provider, Wexford Health Services, which provides healthcare to Clark
County’s inmates. The County and Wexford separately settled the respective claims.

5

Evanston insures Wexford, and its policies list the County as an “additional insured” for

6 claims arising from administrative negligence (as opposed to professional negligence). (See
7 Order on Summ. J. at 4, Dkt. #46.) Evanston brought suit seeking a declaratory judgment that
8 Tran’s claims were professional in nature (as opposed to administrative), and thus, the policies
did not cover Tran’s claims against the County. Id. at 1. The Court found otherwise. Some of
9
Tran’s claims were administrative in nature, and Evanston therefore had a duty to defend and
10
indemnify the County. Id. at 8 (holding that Evanston had a duty to defend and indemnify “with
11 respect to [Tran’s] allegations that address broad policies dealing with issues of organization
12 and operational procedures”).
13

The case proceeded to a bench trial, and the Court found for Clark County in the amount
of $52,664. (Minute Entry Order, Dkt. #90.) The Court requested that the parties address

14

Olympic Steamship fees (i.e., attorney’s fees incurred by the County in forcing Evanston to

15 abide its duty to defend and indemnify) in post-judgment briefing. See Olympic Steamship Co.,
16 Inc. v. Centennial Ins. Co., 117 Wash. 2d 37, 52 (1991) (recognizing right of an insured to
17 “recoup attorney fees that it incurs because an insurer refuses to defend or pay the justified
18

action or claim”). At that juncture—after the Court’s determination of liability and damages,
but before final judgment—the parties began exchanging emails in a settlement negotiation.

19
20

Whether these emails created a binding settlement is the pertinent question.
The negotiations appear to have begun on April 17, 2012, when counsel for Evanston

21 offered to pay the Court’s judgment ($52,674) plus $25,025 in attorney’s fees. (See Decl. of
22

Bronson Potter, Ex. A, Dkt. #95.) The County responded with an offer to settle for $100,000.
Id., Ex. B. The parties apparently discussed the settlement by phone, and on April 19th, the

23
County wrote an email seeking confirmation of the terms of the agreement:
24

ORDER - 2

I am writing this email to confirm and document the settlement agreement we reached
today. Evanston will pay to Clark County the sum of $90,164.00 which equals the
$52,664 awarded by the court plus $37,500 for attorney’s fees and costs. Payment will be
made within 10 days of receipt of Clark County’s tax identification information. Upon
receipt of payment, the parties will file a stipulated motion and order of dismissal. Either
party may recover attorney’s fees for enforcement of the settlement agreement, in the
event of a breach. Please reply with a confirmation that the foregoing accurately
represents the parties’ agreement.g

1
2
3
4

5 Id., Ex. C. Evanston responded:
Your email accurately reflects the parties’ agreement. Please send tax ID and payee
information at your earliest convenience. I’m going to send an email to the clerk this
morning requesting judgment not be entered as the parties have reached an agreement in
principle.

6
7

8 Id., Ex. D. The parties then notified the Court that “Evanston and Clark County have reached
9

an agreement in principle on all issues in this case, including attorney’s fees, and intend to move
to dismiss all claims in this matter with prejudice in the next ten business days.” Id., Ex. E. The

10

happiness was short-lived.

11

On April 25th, Evanston emailed the County a formal settlement agreement, which

12 included a mutual release of all claims between Evanston and the County—stating nothing
13

about Wexford. Id., Ex. H at 3 (“the Parties,” defined as Evanston and the County, “hereby
release and forever discharge each other from any and all claims”). The County objected,

14
viewing the release as unnecessary (because the claims were to be dismissed with prejudice).
15

Id., Ex. I (“I don’t believe a release is necessary nor was it agreed to.”). Evanston responded

16 that there was a “miscommunication” and that the phrase “agreement in principle” meant that
17 “there would be a release memorializing the terms of the agreement.” Id., Ex. J. On May 1st,
18

following a telephone discussion between counsel, the County emailed Evanston and agreed to
sign the release “as drafted.” Id., Ex. L. The County’s email, however, notes that in their

19

discussion, Evanston was now seeking a release of any claims the County might have against its

20 insured—Wexford. Id. (Wexford had contractually agreed to indemnify the County, and if the
21 County brings suit and recovers against Wexford, it would potentially be Evanston footing the
22 bill.)
23

In short, the County wants to enforce the settlement terms and apparently pursue claims
against Wexford. Evanston presents two basic arguments in opposition: (1) the Court should

24

ORDER - 3

1

read an implied release into the agreement because the question of whether Wexford must

2 indemnify the County was settled in this case; and, (2) the phrase “agreement in principle”
3 indicates that the agreement was contingent pending the release, and thus, there was “no
4

meeting of the minds” sufficient to create an enforceable contract.
II.

5

DISCUSSION

Trial courts may “summarily enforce . . . a settlement agreement entered into by the

6 litigants” while the litigation is pending. In re City Equities Anaheim, Ltd., 22 F.3d 954, 957
7 (9th Cir. 1994). But, enforcement may be inappropriate “where material facts concerning the
8 existence or terms of a settlement were in dispute.” Id. (citing Callie v. Near, 829 F.2d 888, 890
(9th Cir. 1987)). In determining whether to enforce a settlement, a court applies local contract
9
law—here, Washington’s. Jeff D. v. Andrus, 899 F.2d 753, 759 (9th Cir. 1989).
10
Washington follows “the objective manifestation theory of contracts,” where a court
11 “attempt[s] to determine the parties’ intent by focusing on the objective manifestation of the
12 agreement, rather than on the unexpressed subjective intent of the parties.” Hearst Commc’ns,
13

Inc. v. Seattle Times Co., 154 Wash. 2d 493, 504 (2005). Washington follows the “context
rule,” whereby extrinsic evidence may be used “to determine the meaning of specific words and

14

terms used” but not to “show an intention independent of the instrument” or to “vary,

15 contradict, or modify the written word.” Id. (emphasis in original). Further, a contract is
16 binding “when the intention of the parties is plain and the terms of the contract are agreed upon
17 even if one or both parties contemplated later execution of a writing.” Kruger v. Credit Int’l
18

Corp., No. 10-cv-1374, 2012 WL 1534023, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 30, 2012) (citing Veith v.
Xterra Wetsuits, LLC, 144 Wash. App. 362, 366 (2008)).

19

Here, the Court must conclude that the settlement agreement between the parties was

20 binding on April 20th, when counsel for Evanston responded: “Your email accurately reflects
21 the parties’ agreement.” (Potter Decl., Ex. D.) Although Evanston’s counsel stated that she
22

would notify the Court of “an agreement in principle,” there is nothing to suggest that a release
of a potential County claim against Wexford had crossed either party’s mind. Indeed,

23
Evanston’s draft release, sent five days after the acceptance, does not include any such release.
24

ORDER - 4

1

Id., Ex. H. Rather, the emails demonstrate that a potential release of claims against Wexford

2 first occurred to Evanston on May 1st.
Given these facts, the Court sees no need to resolve what Evanston meant by “agreement

3
4

in principle.” At the time of acceptance, neither party had considered a release of claims against
Wexford, and therefore, any reservations meant by the phrase “in principle” cannot have

5

included such a release. The objective manifestations, supported by extrinsic evidence, lead to

6 one conclusion: the settlement agreement was final and included no release of potential claims
7 against Wexford. Evanston’s briefing appears to concede as much.
In a sort of implied concession, Evanston’s brief ignores contract law almost entirely. It

8
9

argues that the Court should create a release of claims against Wexford for expediency. In
short, Evanston argues that by allowing the County to pursue claims against Wexford (by

10

failing to create a release in the settlement agreement), the Court will allow the County to re-try

11 issues already decided in this suit. “[The Court’s ruling], an unequivocal finding that Clark
12 County paid nothing to Tran on Wexford’s behalf, should extinguish any further attempt by the
13

County to prove Wexford still owes it a duty to indemnify . . . .” (Pl.’s Resp. at 4.) But this
argument is appropriate in a future motion to dismiss from Wexford, not in opposing

14

enforcement of the settlement agreement.1

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

1

Evanston correctly notes that their argument “is not, strictly speaking, a matter of res
judicata,” but indicates they view it as closely related. (Pl.’s Resp. at 4.) The ruling could have
a collateral estoppel effect—preventing the re-litigation of an issue previously decided. See 18
Charles A. Wright et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 4416 (2d ed. 2012). Indeed, this
Court determined at trial, and stated on the record, that the amounts paid by the County to
Tran’s family and estate were for the County’s own conduct and not that of Wexford, and as
such, the Court sees no avenue for indemnity. (See Pl.’s Resp. at 4 (citing the Court’s
statements at trial)). But, that issue is separate from the question of whether the settlement
agreement is enforceable.

ORDER - 5

1
2

III.

CONCLUSION

In light of this dispute, the Court cautions the parties with the following truism:

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

This is not a criticism of counsel, but simply a gentle reminder not to hurtle down the x-axis
with undue disregard for the y-axis. The Court worries that the slope of this case appears to be
steepening, and hopefully the parties have taken notice.
For the reasons stated above, Clark County’s motion to compel is GRANTED. (Dkt.
#94.) Pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement, the Court awards Clark County $3,850 in
attorney’s fees for the costs of this motion. (See Potter Decl. ¶ 6, Dkt. #102.)
Dated this 8th day of June, 2012.

A

21
22

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

23
24

ORDER - 6