The underlying litigation arose from a UM claim stemming from a hit and run accident in which Plaintiff alleged she sustained serious injury as a result of same. A settlement was reached pre-litigation and was made contingent on a release of all claims and included confidentiality and non-disparagement as to Plaintiff. After Plaintiff’s counsel confirmed the settlement, he asserted that conditioning same on the execution of a release was in violation of Nevada law, a common position of the Plaintiffs’ bar in Clark County, Nevada. Plaintiff’s counsel ultimately had his client execute the release in exchange for the settlement check. However later, he filed a Complaint in District Court which alleged: (i) breach of contract; (2) bad faith; and (3) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiff sought damages in excess of $1,000,000.00.
BWB&O Partner Jeffrey Saab removed the lawsuit to Federal Court and sought dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint by virtue of a Motion for Summary Judgment in which he argued that the underlying settlement encompassed all claims including bad faith and breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing; the language of the release was clear and unambiguous; and that conditioning the settlement on the execution of a release was in conformance with Nevada Law.
After consideration of the moving papers, the Court granted Jeffrey’s Motion for Summary Judgment ruling, in pertinent part, that conditioning the settlement on the execution of a release by Plaintiff did not violate the Nevada Administrative Code Section 686A.660; that the scope of the release was not overbroad; and that no additional consideration was required beyond the original settlement paid to support the scope of the release.
Following issuance of the Order, the Court entered judgment in favor of Jeffrey’s client and dismissed the case in its entirety.