- 15 - complaint had “no operative effect whatever on the settlement.” Even if we were to conclude that petitioner’s claim for personal injury was valid, the settlement agreement did not specifically allocate any of the payment towards settlement of that particular claim. Intent of the Payor Crandall, Jr. testified that the defendants had two reasons for settling the case. First, they wanted to have clear title on the patents. Second, they were afraid that, if they were tied up in litigation for a period of time, they would lose their “marketing opportunity”. Crandall, Jr. further testified that their “main objective in settling this case, our main reason to settle this was not over a personal injury. It was to make clear the intellectual property that we wanted so that we could go to market and make money.” The defendants’ counsel, Dyer, also testified similarly that the mediation and settlement were to transfer clearly all rights in the patents to ProGuard. Crandall, Jr. testified that the entire mediation discussion revolved around the contractual dispute and there was no mention of a claim for personal injury. See Dickerson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-53 (no evidence of personal injury discussed in negotiations); Coblenz v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-131 (no discussion regarding tort claim during final settlement).Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011