Cases

Parties entered into a settlement agreement at mediation and as a part of the overall agreement, the claimant was to "execute a general release and resignation in favor of the employer."  Settlement documents ultimately prepared included an Indemnity and hold harmless agreement.  Claimant's attorney refused to agree to the indemnity and hold harmless agreement and filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement, not including the indemnity and hold harmless agreement.

It is within the jurisdiction of the JCC to determine whether a settlement was reached and if so, to establish its terms.  Settlement agreements are governed by the laws for interpretation of contracts are highly favored, and will be enforced whenever possible.  The making of a contract depends not on the agreement of two minds and one intention but on the agreement of two sets of external signs - not on the parties having meant the same thing but on their having said the same thing.

The court differentiated between a general release which was agreed to at the mediation settlement agreement as opposed to an indemnification agreement.  Since the parties had agreed only to a release and not an indemnification agreement, court determined that the settlement was consistent with the agreement at mediation and accordingly, determined that the settlement without an indemnity provision was consistent with the agreement between the parties. Accordingly, the motion to grant the settlement should have been entered by the JCC.