- 11 -
fact that the jury had awarded petitioner damages as part of its
special verdict.
Harris paid the $2,315,000 to petitioner as part of a larger
package of consideration that settled all of his claims related
to his termination from CGC. The jury had found that Harris and
the other defendants were liable to petitioner for $2,315,000 by
virtue of the fact that each of the defendants was connected to
one or more of the first five causes of action set forth above.
Petitioner looks solely to the claims that he had made against
Harris and concludes that the payment was entirely for those
claims. We disagree with this conclusion. We read the
settlement agreement to indicate that Harris paid the $2,315,000
to petitioner intending to satisfy all of his claims set forth in
the first five causes of action and not merely those claims which
he had made against Harris. To be sure, Harris designed the
settlement agreement specifically to preserve the claims that it
had against the other defendants by virtue of its payment of the
$4.5 million and to assure the cooperation of petitioner and the
superior court in pursuing and collecting on those claims.
As to the first and fifth causes of action (breach of
contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing), any proceeds which petitioner received for
settlement of those claims do not meet the first condition for
exclusion under section 104(a)(2); i.e., both claims are
contractual in that any damages which could be recovered on them
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011