Brown v. Simoneaux

4 Citing cases

  1. Malta v. Herbert S. Hiller Corp.

    365 So. 3d 123 (La. Ct. App. 2020)

    Having signed off on all of Mr. Hebert's reports, Mr. Harvey is legally presumed to have read and understood its contents. See , e.g ., Brown v. Simoneaux , 593 So.2d 939, 941 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1992) ("[a]n individual who signs a written instrument is charged with the responsibility of having read it and is presumed to know and understand its contents"); Guimmo v. Albarado , 99-286, p. 7 (La. App. 5 Cir. 7/27/99), 739 So.2d 973, 976 ("when a party signs papers they are presumed to know the contents of those papers.").

  2. Hymel v. Eagle, Inc.

    No. 2008-CA-1287 (La. Ct. App. Mar. 19, 2009)

    The Louisiana Civil Code expressly provides that a transaction or compromise between two or more parties, who by mutual consent adjust their differences to prevent or resolve a lawsuit, carries force equal to the authority of adjudicated disputes. La.C.C. art. 3071; Brown v. Simoneaux, 593 So.2d 939 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1992). The subsequent discovery by a claimant that an injury was more serious than initially believed does not entitle the claimant to rescind the settlement and release agreement.

  3. Hymel v. Eagle, Inc.

    7 So. 3d 1249 (La. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 19 times
    In Hymel v. Eagle, Inc., the plaintiff was diagnosed with asbestosis and later, executed a release in exchange for $15,000, in which the plaintiff agreed to "release and forever discharge the released parties from any and all liability on account of or in any way growing out of occupational diseases or conditions attributable to exposure to asbestos... including but not limited to death, mesothelioma, cancer, shortness of breath, fear of cancer or increased risk of cancer...."

    The Louisiana Civil Code expressly provides that a transaction or compromise between two or more parties, who by mutual consent adjust their differences to prevent or resolve a lawsuit, carries force equal to the authority of adjudicated disputes. La.C.C. art. 3071; Brown v. Simoneaux, 593 So.2d 939 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1992). The subsequent discovery by a claimant that an injury was more serious than initially believed does not entitle the claimant to rescind the settlement and release agreement.

  4. Dimitri v. Dimitri

    809 So. 2d 481 (La. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 14 times
    Finding that a general release of "all claims" did not include a release of plaintiff's claims for personal injuries and total medical expenses

    He contends, therefore, that this transaction should be rescinded because there was error as to the subject matter of the dispute being settled. CNA argues that Mr. Dimitri is presumed to know the contents of the release he signed and that he cannot avoid its obligations by pretending that he did not read it, that it was not explained to him, or that he did not understand it. Tweedel v. Brasseaux, 433 So.2d 133 (La. 1983); Myers v. Burger King Corp., 618 So.2d 1123 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1993); Brown v. Simoneaux, 593 So.2d 939 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1992). Because the language of the release is clear and explicit, CNA argues that extrinsic evidence, beyond the four corners of the agreement, may not be considered in order to determine the parties' intent.