Preview:

2013 fEB 21  PH 2: 04  
PERCY CHIASSON  NO. 12-CA-532  
DEPUTY CLERK  
Sl HCIRCUIT counr Of APPE!L  
VERSUS  STATE Of LOL'ISIANA  FIFTH CIRCUIT  

PROGRESSIVE SECURITY INSURANCE  COURT OF APPEAL  
CONIPANY  
STATE OF LOUISIANA  

ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JTJDICIAL DISTRICT COLTRT
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 661-174, DIVISION "P"
HONORABLE LEE V. FAULKNER, JR., JUDGE PRESIDING

FEBRUARY 21,2013

HANS J. LILJEBERG
JUDGE

Panel composed ofJudges Jude G. Gravois,
Robert M. Murphy, and Hans J. Liljeberg

ALEXANDRE E. BONIN
Attorney at Law
4224 Canal Street
New Orleans, Louisiana 70119
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT
CASLER, BORDELON & LAWLER
DONALD R. KLOTZ, JR.
Attorney at Law
2450 Severn Avenue
Suite 200
Metairie, Louisiana 70001
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE
AFFIRMED
/ ./"

}/ .
~.... /

q~ll
Plaintiff, Percy Chiasson, appeals the trial court's February 6,2012,
~ judgment granting the Motion to Enforce Settlement filed by defendant, Progressive Security Insurance Company ("Progressive"). For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On June 22, 2006, Mr. Chiasson was involved in a motor vehicle accident, and he suffered personal injuries as a result. After making a claim with the tortfeasor's liability insurer, Mr. Chiasson filed the instant lawsuit against his uninsured/underinsured ("UM") carrier, Progressive, asserting that his damages exceed the policy limits ofthe tortfeasor.
On April 7,2011, Progressive filed a Motion to Enforce Settlement, seeking an order from the trial court compelling Mr. Chiasson to execute documents in accordancewith asettlementagreementthatwasreachedinNovember of201O. Specifically, Progressive claims that on November 23,2010, Mr. Chiasson agreed to accept $25,000.00 in exchange for a full release of Progressive. However, despite repeated requests, plaintiff has failed to execute the settlement documents evidencing the parties' agreement. In support of its motion, Progressive submitted the November 23,2010, letter from Progressive's attorney to plaintiffs attorney which set forth the settlement terms. This letter was signed by plaintiffs attorney, Kevin Steel, above the notation, "On Behalf of and with the Consent of Percy Chaisson [sic]."
On January 24,2012, Mr. Chiasson filed a memorandum in opposition to Progressive's Motion to Enforce Settlement. In his memorandum, Mr. Chiasson stated that he has not signed a release of his claims or endorsed any settlement check, because he did not authorize Mr. Steel to settle his claim for $25,000.00. Mr. Chiasson also noted that he had retained new counsel to address this matter.
This matter came for hearing before the trial judge on January 31, 2012. After brief argument by counsel for both parties, the trial judge granted Progressive's Motion to Enforce Settlement in open court. On February 6, 2012, the trial judge signed a written judgment granting the motion and dismissing Mr. Chiasson's claims. Mr. Chiasson appeals. LAW AND DISCUSSION
On appeal, Mr. Chiasson asserts that the trial judge erred when he granted Progressive's Motion to Enforce Settlement. He claims that the record is insufficient to meet the writing requirement necessary for an enforceable compromise. Mr. Chiasson further complains that Progressive did not submit any evidence that he gave his former attorney, Mr. Steel, the express authority to settle his case.
Progressive replies that the writing requirement for a valid compromise was fulfilled in this case, because the November 23,2010, letter setting forth the settlement agreement, which was signed by Mr. Steel, provides that Mr. Steel was given the "specific authority" to settle Mr. Chaisson's claims. It further contends that Mr. Chiasson has offered no evidence to show that the assertion by Mr. Steel that he had "specific authority" to enter into the settlement is untrue. Finally, Progressive argues that ifan opposing party cannot rely on the written assertions of counsel that he has the authority ofhis client to enter into an agreement, this will place a great burden on the system, requiring greater time and effort to confect settlements. We agree with Progressive's position.
A settlement or compromise is a contract whereby the parties, through concessions made by one or more of them, settle a dispute or an uncertainty concerning an obligation or other legal relationship. LSA-C.C. art. 3071; Sims v. US Agencies Casualty Insurance Co., 10-1120, p. 6 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/22/10),68 So. 3d 570,574, writ denied, 11-1927 (La. 11/14/11),75 So. 3d 943. LSA-C.C. art. 3072 requires that a compromise "shall be made in writing or recited in open court." The requirement of a written document to perfect a compromise is not satisfied by the signature ofa party's attorney alone, unless authorization is expressly given, as per LSA-C.C. art. 2997. 1 Sims, 10-1120 at 8,68 So. 3d at 575.
In the present case, the November 23, 2010, letter from Progressive provides: Please accept this correspondence as confirmation that this matter has resolved for $11,373.00 in new money for a total of $25,000.00, subject to any and all valid and outstanding liens or privileges ofany kind or nature. In exchange for the settlement draft, it is my understanding that you have agreed to have your client dismiss and discharge Progressive Security Insurance Company, for any and all liability as a result ofthe incident which occurred on June 22, 2006. It is also my understanding that you have specific authority from your client to enter into and agree to the settlement described and outlined above. (Emphasis added). This letter further provides, in pertinent part:
I LSA-C.C. art. 2997 provides, in pertinent part: "Authority also must be given expressly to: ... [e]nter into a compromise or refer a matter to arbitration."
I respectfully request that you sign the bottom of this correspondence and return it to my attention by facsimile. Doing so signifies your client's acceptance and agreement of the terms of this settlement described and outlined above. (Emphasis in original).
As stated above, plaintiffs attorney, Kevin Steel, signed the bottom of this letter above the notation, "On Behalf of and with the Consent of Percy Chaisson [sic]." By signing this letter, plaintiffs attorney verified that he had been given specific authority to settle Mr. Chiasson's claims against Progressive for a total of $25,000.00. The only evidence submitted by either party is this letter, which indicates that Mr. Chiasson gave Mr. Steel the express authority to settle his case against Progressive for $25,000.00. Progressive was entitled to rely on Mr. Steel's assertion that he was acting with Mr. Chiasson's consent. At the hearing in this matter, Mr. Chiasson did not provide any testimony or evidence to contest the information in the letter or establish that Mr. Chiasson did not give Mr. Steel express authority to settle the case.
In support of his position, Mr. Chiasson cites Mayeaux v. Denny's, Inc, 95

Download 2AD194ED-CFD6-48A6-8098-798541E6B9F0.pdf

Louisiana Law