- 9 -
C. Settlement Negotiations and Settlement Agreements
Petitioners contend that the settlement included payments
for emotional distress, and that Shaw considered emotional
distress in drafting the agreements for United. They point out
that the settlement agreements included a release of “damages of
every other kind by whatever name called”. Petitioners contend
that this language shows that United paid them on account of
emotional distress. We disagree. Jarrard and Shaw represented
United at the settlement conference. Jarrard testified that the
parties did not discuss emotional distress during the settlement
discussions. Shaw testified that he did not remember considering
emotional distress in settling petitioners’ cases. There is no
evidence that the parties discussed personal injuries or sickness
in their settlement negotiations.
Petitioners contend that the settlement agreements establish
that United paid them on account of personal injuries or
sickness. We disagree; the settlement agreements do not refer to
personal injuries or sickness.
Petitioners contend that the last paragraph of the
settlement agreements shows that United paid them on account of
personal injuries or sickness because it states that the payments
were compensatory in nature. We disagree. Generally,
“compensatory damages” are the same as “actual damages” and
encompass all types of damages other than punitive damages.
Fountain-Lowrey Entrs, Inc. v. Williams, 424 So. 2d 581, 585
(Ala. 1982); Skipper v. S. Cent. Bell Tel. Co., 334 So. 2d 863,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011