## Facts

- Frank E. Noroski was injured and sustained losses in an automobile collision with Ervin C. Fallet on September 25, 1975.
- Fallet was insured by Celina Mutual Insurance Company, whose claims adjuster communicated with Noroski regarding payment.
- Celina sent Noroski a check for $454.76 for property damage with a written release form; Noroski did not cash the check or sign the release.
- On December 31, 1975, Noroski and Celina’s adjuster had a telephone conversation that Celina tape-recorded.
- During the call, the adjuster agreed to pay an additional amount (about $119.64), and the parties discussed settling claims arising from the accident.
- The adjuster did not follow an internal procedure to mark the later check as a “Release” or otherwise label it as a settlement payment.
- After the call, Noroski incurred additional medical expenses and lost wages and sought further recovery; Celina refused, asserting the claim had been fully settled.
- In the ensuing lawsuit, Fallet asserted an affirmative defense that Noroski had agreed to a full settlement; the tape recording was introduced into evidence.

## Issues

1. Whether an oral, tape-recorded telephone agreement can constitute a binding settlement and release of tort claims.
2. Whether, on this record, the existence and scope of any “full and complete” release of all claims was a question of law for the court or a question of fact for the jury.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the judgment for Fallet and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that an oral, tape-recorded settlement may be enforceable as a contract and can operate as a release.
- The court concluded that whether the parties actually intended, in this conversation, to settle and release all claims (including bodily injury) was a factual question for the trier of fact because the evidence permitted more than one reasonable interpretation.

## Legal Principles

- A settlement agreement is a contract; an oral settlement may be enforceable if ordinary contract elements (including mutual assent and consideration) are proven.
- A release of tort claims need not be written absent a controlling requirement, but enforceability depends on proof of intent to release the claims at issue.
- When evidence regarding the parties’ intent and the scope of a purported release is ambiguous, those matters are for the factfinder rather than being resolved as a pure question of law.
- An insurer’s internal claims-handling procedures (such as labeling a check “Release”) are not dispositive of contract formation but may be relevant evidence bearing on intent.

## Conclusion

The court recognized that a taped telephone settlement can form an enforceable release, but held that the disputed intent and scope of the alleged “full and complete” settlement in this case had to be determined by the factfinder, requiring reversal of judgment for the defendant and a remand.


Noroski v. Fallet, 442 N.E.2d 1302 (Ohio 1982)