Seeking the proper terminology

[kayak99]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? PA

I'm looking for a legal term I have heard but cannot recall.

What is it referred to when a person enters into an agreement (or takes an action) solely based on information received from another person.

In my case I negotiated an settlement agreement with a third party based upon information (numbers) given to me by a insurance claims rep. (The information was verbal using a down-to-the-penny formula.)

Now that I have reached a settlement the rep wants to change the amount to enhance his position, to the detriment of mine.

 

[lex_advoc]

Terms

In matters of evidence, it is termed as hearsay.
In matters of an agreement, it is termed as gamble. That's pretty much a gamble, you should investigate further before entering into any contract/s.
In matters of action, malicious action (no cause of action, I say).

 

[kayak99]

I don't recognize any of those as the term I was given for the reliance of the words of another.

I seem to think the word "reliance" was a part of it but, again, I cannot recall.

 

[tranquility]

Let me see, you relyed on the word of another to your detriment? Are you looking for detrimental reliance? It doesn't require a third party, in fact, with a third party you have nothing unless the third party is an agent of the person you dealt with.

But, more to the point, how were you hurt? Getting less than informally agreed upon when the agreement becomes formal is not a detriment. How did you change your position based on the reliance of the word of the third party? Detrimental reliance is compensation for how you were hurt, not for what you expected.

 

[kayak99]

Maybe I can explain it better this way (or not).

Company A was wanting to settle a claim in which Company B was entitled to a portion of the claim, say $4. After long negotiations Company A offered a total of $7. (Company B took no role in the negotiations.)

Because I would not settle with Company A for a net of $3, I negotiatied with Company B to accept $2.50 rather than $4 and get the case settled. They agreed but not in writing however I can prove this by the complicated formula specific to their industry they used to accept the $2.50. (Note - it was they that came up with the $2.50 amount, not I.

I then gave my word and agreed (papers not yet signed) to accept from Company A the $7 and to pay Company B the agreed $2.50and retain the $4.50 however now Company B decides that it wants $3.50.

That is as specific as I can get. I'm really not looking for a legal opinion, but the terminology where one relies on the actions of others (i.e. Company B) before taking a specific action (i.e. my agreement to settle). I would not have accepted the settlement from Company A had Company B not agreed to accept the $2.50. There were other recourses. I want to honor my committment to Company A and I am wanting Company B to honor their agreement.

Thanks

 

[quincy]

Could it be "estoppel" that you are looking for? Perhaps promissory estoppel or quasi-estoppel?

 

[kayak99]

Could it be "estoppel" that you are looking for? Perhaps promissory estoppel or quasi-estoppel?

Not the word I was trying to remember but that one might apply to this situation, thanks!!

 

[tranquility]

I was using detrimental reliance as the same as promissory estoppel but wanted to be clever by using the OP's words. And, even in the OP's further facts, he has two problems. The first is the same I mentioned. I don't see the damages here. I can see why he feels he is out money, but one should settle a claim for what it's worth--not what one thinks one can net. I don't think there are damages.

The second is that one of the elements is reasonable reliance. Can the OP reasonably rely on the word of the person in company B? I don't think so. There would have to be a much greater depth of facts to even start thinking about it, but I don't think it is reasonable to rely on what a person says when dealing with this type of subrogation issue. I wouldn't commit myself until I saw something in writing.

 

[kayak99]

I was using detrimental reliance as the same as promissory estoppel but wanted to be clever by using the OP's words. And, even in the OP's further facts, he has two problems. The first is the same I mentioned. I don't see the damages here. I can see why he feels he is out money, but one should settle a claim for what it's worth--not what one thinks one can net. I don't think there are damages.

I respectfully disagree. There were other circumstances that made this a difficult case and it is being settled for far less than its value to end the matter but unfortunately I cannot share that with you. The damages are simple. We agreed to settle for what we did based on the claims reps verbal agreement to accept a lesser amount than their original claim.

The second is that one of the elements is reasonable reliance. Can the OP reasonably rely on the word of the person in company B? I don't think so. There would have to be a much greater depth of facts to even start thinking about it, but I don't think it is reasonable to rely on what a person says when dealing with this type of subrogation issue. I wouldn't commit myself until I saw something in writing.

The person with whom I was dealing at Company B is the claims representative assigned to this case and has been our only contact with this company during the several years this claim has been active. Given he has held himself to hold that position on many occasions,by phone, by email and by letter, I felt we ccould reasonably rely on his word but yes, something in writing would have been better. Our mistake in not getting that but, as mentioned, I can prove he offered the numbers when he did. Also please note, even as a subrogator, he was actually on our side vs. Company A until this change of settlement amount.

 

[tranquility]

There were other circumstances that made this a difficult case and it is being settled for far less than its value to end the matter

I suspected as much and this fact makes your claim of "damages" even more speculative. The plaintiff has to prove damages. The difficutly of the case makes it much more difficult to prove. The concept of "far less than its value" is one for laymen. Just like the sale of a house, the value is what a willing buyer will pay for it--it's not what one side thinks it is worth.

I felt we ccould reasonably rely on his word but yes, something in writing would have been better.

I'd have to spend time looking things up to be sure, but I think something in writing is *necessary*. I don't think this is going to be a matter of proof (where a writing is easier than trying to prove what someone has said), but of law. Everything here screams of a statute of frauds issue. I believe it is unreasonable, as a matter of law, to rely on the spoken word of an adjuster in this circumstance. As I said, I'm not positive, but I've seen enough of these type of things to have a good sense.

Also please note, even as a subrogator, he was actually on our side vs. Company A until this change of settlement amount.

If he were on your side, he may have had a greater duty to not mislead you. If there was a special relationship, like a fiduciary duty, you have more of a chance.

In any event, this is not a small claims issue. This is a subtle case with a lot of hard legal issues which will require a lawyer or A LOT of study on your own.