Originally from World Arbitration And Mediation Review (WAMR)

Preview Page

Mediation Case Law Review - Part 1: January-June 2006

I. ENFORCEMENT OF MEDIATED SETTLEMENTS
A. State Supreme Courts
Affordable Erecting, Inc. v. Neosho Trompler, Inc., 715 N.W.2d 620 (Wis.
2006) (concluding that a mediated settlement agreement signed by a party’s
attorney did not comport with statutory requirements that the agreement to
be enforceable must be written and subscribed by the party or attorney,
where the attorney signed but noted that the settlement was contingent on
the client’s approval; but nonetheless enforcing the agreement under the
theory of equitable estoppel because the actions of the party, including
assurances that the agreement would be signed, receipt of an insurance
check, and silence when the court dismissed the original case for failure to
prosecute, induced reasonable reliance).
Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Barber Insulation, Inc., 2006 WL 1577847 (Ala.
June 9, 2006) (refusing to enforce an alleged mediated settlement agreement
since it was neither reduced to writing nor included in the minutes of the
court as required by Ala.Code §34-3-21).
Dennis v. Erin Truckways, Ltd., 188 S.W.3d 578 (Tenn. 2006) (setting
aside a mediated settlement agreement because of lack of adherence to
procedural safeguards intended to protect the rights of unrepresented
workers’ compensation claimants, including failure to fully apprise the
unrepresented claimant of the scope of benefits available, as well as failure
to provide court or commissioner review of the settlement).
Quote from the court: “[T]he entire compensation system has
been set up and paid for, not by the parties, but by the public. The
public has ultimately borne the cost of compensation protection in
the price of the product, and it has done so for the specific
purpose of avoiding having the disabled victims of industry
thrown on private charity or local relief. To this end, the public
has enacted into law a scale of benefits which will forestall such
destitution. It follows, then, that the employer and employee have
no private right to thwart this objective by agreeing between them
on a disposition of the claim that may, by giving the workman less
than this amount, make him a potential public burden”).