Broad Release in VSSR Settlement Agreement Sinks Subsequent Action for Spoliation of Evidence

An Ohio appellate court recently affirmed a decision of a state trial court that granted summary judgment in favor of an employer in a civil action filed against it by an injured employee (and his wife) for spoliation of evidence, based upon the employee’s earlier execution of a broad release in connection with his settlement of a violation of specific safety requirements (“VSSR”) claim against the employer [Owens v. Bridgestone Americas, Inc., 2020-Ohio-5156, 2020 Ohio App. LEXIS 3999 (Nov. 3, 2020)]. Noting that the release was extremely broad, but unambiguous, and that the employee had been represented by counsel at the time of the VSSR settlement, the court declined to overturn the trial court’s decision.

Background

According to the allegations of his complaint, Owens was employed by Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC (“BRO”). He suffered extensive injuries in March 2014, when the plastic rim of a snow thrower tire he was attempting to inflate exploded. He sought and was awarded workers’ compensation benefits for the injury. In addition, Owens also filed an application for an additional VSSR award.

The VSSR claim was ultimately resolved with a settlement agreement, which included a release of “all other claims, actions, causes of actions, suits and/or demands, whether said claims, actions, causes of actions, suits and/or demands are at law or in equity, state or federal, punitive or actual, past, present or future, which the Injured Worker may have or allege to have against the Employer ….”

Throughout his workers’ compensation proceedings, including the application for a VSSR award, Owens named Bridgestone Americas Holdings (“BAH”) as his employer. According to the appellate court, Owens believed BAH was his employer for workers’ compensation purposes. Instead, at all relevant times, Owens was employed by BRO. Furthermore, BRO bore the expense of the workers’ compensation benefits and paid the consideration for the VSSR settlement.

Meanwhile, separate and apart from the workers’ compensation proceedings, Owens (and his wife) filed a products liability action against MTD Products, Inc., the manufacturer of the tire. Owens served BRO with a subpoena duces tecum, seeking production of the remnants of the tire and rim. BRO indicated it did not have the the snow thrower tire. Owens then sought unsuccessfully to add BRO as a defendant in the products liability case.

Owens then filed the instant civil action against BRO asserting one cause of action for spoliation of evidence. Subsequently, the trial court granted BRO’s motion for summary judgment. On appeal, Owens contended, in relevant part, that the VSSR release did not bar future spoliation claims.

Appellate Court Decision

The appellate court noted that a release of a cause of action for damages is ordinarily an absolute bar to a later action on any claim encompassed within the release. Moreover, because a release was a contract, a court could not resort to extrinsic evidence in its effort to give effect to the intentions of the parties unless the language in the contract was unclear or ambiguous, or where the circumstances surrounding the agreement invested the language of the contract with a special meaning.

The court continued by noting that although releases from liability for future tortious conduct were generally disfavored by the law and would be narrowly construed, such releases were nonetheless routinely applied by courts to bar future tort liability where the intent of the parties was stated in clear and unambiguous terms.

The court found that the language of the release clearly and unambiguously included Owens’ claim for spoliation of evidence. It included any and all other claims between the parties, including future claims. It was broadly worded to be inclusive of all claims and did not specifically exclude any type of claim. The court also stressed that at the time the VSSR Settlement was signed, the Owenses’ case against MTD had been pending for more than six months. The workplace accident occurred more than two years before the VSSR Settlement, including the release, was executed. Thus, the court found there had been more than sufficient time to investigate whether Owens had any claims he would wish to exclude from the language of the release. Furthermore, during the entire period of time, Owens was represented by counsel. The court also stressed that there was no evidence in the record that supported the Owenses’ assertion that the tire and rim were destroyed by BRO subsequent to the parties’ mutual execution of the VSSR Settlement and release.

Based on the foregoing, the court found the trial court had not erred in finding that the Owenses’ claim for spoliation of evidence was barred by the VSSR Settlement release executed by Owens and in granting summary judgment on BRO’s motion.