Broad Release Language Upheld

A plaintiff is bound by the express terms of a written release of liability that extended not only to the signatories, but also to “all other persons, firms, corporations, associations or partnerships.”

Heriberto Rodriguez was injured in a car accident purportedly caused by Takeshi Oto. Oto was driving a rental car provided by Hertz Corporation. Unbeknownst to Rodriguez, Oto was driving from an event related to his employment with Toshiba America, Inc.

Some seven months after the accident, Rodriguez settled with Hertz for $25,000, the limit of its coverage for bodily injury or death. As part of the settlement he executed a written release in favor of “Takeshi Oto and The Hertz Corporation, its employees, agents, servants, successors, heirs, executors, administrators and all other persons, firms, corporations, associations or partnerships (hereafter Releasees).” Rodriguez was represented by counsel when he signed the release. He later asserted it was his understanding, at the time, that he was releasing only Oto and Hertz.

Rodriguez later sued Oto and Toshiba for his injuries.

Summary judgment in favor of Oto and Toshiba was proper as the release explicitly exonerated Oto from further liability and also extended to Toshiba.  The court found Rodriguez’s undisclosed intentions to release only Oto and Hertz insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact, and the extrinsic evidence established no ambiguity. 

At issue was whether evidence of the executed release was sufficient to preclude a judgment against Toshiba. The release signed by Rodriguez extended not only to the named releasees Hertz and Oto, and their agents and successors, but to “all other persons, firms, corporations, associations or partnerships.” As a matter of plain logic, Toshiba—along with every other person or corporation in the universe—belonged to the class thus absolved of liability. The question was whether this logic alone was enough to establish, in the absence of countervailing evidence, that Toshiba was entitled to the protection of the release. The answer, the court found, was yes.

Rodriguez v. Oto; January 15, 2013.