The prudent approach of the judiciary to approval judgments is particularly reinforced when the underlying agreement is linked to an obligation of non-performance. An obligation not to perform is an agreement “by which a party who has won a judgment agrees not to enforce it”. 9 These alliances are suspicious because they are accompanied by perverse incitement. “If the insured actually pays for the settlement of the damage or if the case is judged in its entirety, the amount of the transaction or judgment can be considered realistic.” 10 However, where an insured person relies on the agreement without practical consequences, he has little reason to dispute the amount of the duty and the accuracy of the judgment is called into question. Even if a detailed settlement agreement has been reached, it is still important to indicate what will happen to this request. The insured also agreed to pay US$5,000 to partially satisfy the judgment and to assign to the plaintiffs all of his policy and claims rights against the insurer, and the plaintiffs agreed not to require the insured to pay the outstanding balance of the judgment and to limit the satisfaction of the award to all amounts they recovered from the insurer. There is a colony. The parties to the dispute have reached an agreement that embodies their negotiations. Some leave with permission. Others leave with a check. Still others had put their hearts on an assignment of receivables against a third party. As soon as the consideration changes ownership, the parties submit a termination provision or the court makes an approval decision. Does that mean the argument is over? In most cases, this is the case.
However, sometimes the dispute continues to live on or is inherited from a third party against whom claims have been assigned. This article examines the circumstances in which settlement agreements are attacked in West Virginia, either by the parties or by third parties against whom they must be enforced. Generally speaking, settlement agreements indicate the end of a dispute. They are “highly respected and scrupulously imposed as long as they are legally irreproachable”. 1 Indeed, because “the law promotes and encourages the resolution of controversies through compromise and comparison agreements. . . . It is the policy of the law to maintain and enforce such treaties if they are made just and do not violate any law or public order. 2 In West Virginia, parties to a transaction can only reopen it then, if they overcome the heavy burden of finding that the comparison was the result of an accident, error, or fraud.3 Given these significant obstacles, it is rare for a party to the lawsuit to directly challenge their own concordat agreement.4 23 BAD FAITH INSURER LITIGATION AND PREVENTION § 3:50 (3rd h. 2018) (reference to Penn-America, as a representative of the majority rule, “that the approval or judgment included is simply not binding if the party from whom compensation is sought was not a party to the previous proceedings”). .