- 17 -
considered torts under Texas law, that petitioner incurred harm
to his business reputation as a result of the alleged torts
committed by First City Bank, that the harm to his business
reputation was a personal injury, and that petitioner’s lawsuit
was settled on account of that personal injury. Respondent
disagrees and asserts that petitioner’s lawsuit was settled on
account of petitioner’s loss of the Modern World stock, an
economic injury. We first discuss whether the settlement
proceeds were received on account of a harm to business
reputation claim and on account of personal injuries or sickness.
The parties executed a settlement agreement to settle
petitioner’s lawsuit. Within the scope provision of the final
settlement agreement, the parties recited that the subject matter
of the Recitals and petitioner’s lawsuit served as the basis for
the settlement. By reference to the Recitals section in the
final settlement agreement and petitioner’s amended complaint
against the FDIC, the final settlement agreement covers both a
claim of harm to business reputation and a loss of the Modern
World stock, respectively. Because the final settlement
agreement does not provide an allocation with regard to those
claims, we look beyond the final settlement agreement to
determine the intent of the payor in paying the settlement
proceeds.
In reaching a settlement with the FDIC, petitioner and his
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011