- 26 -
result of her termination. Clearly, then, at least initially,
claims were asserted on Katherine’s behalf for economic injuries,
as well as for emotional and physical damages. There is no
suggestion in the record that Maritz Inc. ever received any
affirmative indication that Katherine had abandoned her
previously asserted claims for economic injuries. Particularly
in light of the assertion on Katherine’s behalf, in the May 1994
Suelthaus letter, of a claim for wrongful discharge from
employment, we are convinced that Maritz Inc. intended the
settlement payment to Katherine to discharge her previously
asserted and never-withdrawn claims for economic injuries, as
well as her claims for personal injuries.
3. Damian’s and First Capitol’s Claims for Economic
Injuries
At the meeting between Suelthaus and Backerman on or about
June 30, 1993, Suelthaus asserted a claim on Damian’s behalf for
tortious interference with a business relationship. About 2
weeks later, the Hobler family, through one of their newly
elected Maritz Inc. board members, introduced a resolution to
reinstate First Capitol as a supplier to Maritz Inc. and to
compensate it for “lost profits on the cancelled orders * * * and
any other damages (if any) it may have suffered”. No resolution
was introduced to compensate Damian for any separate injuries he
may have suffered, personal or otherwise. We believe at that
early juncture in the negotiations, the claims asserted on behalf
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011