RALEIGH, N.C. (Legal Newsline) - A widow won't get to sue the owner of an aircraft that crashed, killing her husband, because her previous lawyer already agreed to settle that claim.
Pamela Lowrie wanted North Carolina courts to rule the $100,000 settlement unenforceable, but the Court of Appeals on Oct. 3 backed Rowan County Superior Court Judge Lori Hamilton in ruling against her.
Scott Lowrie and Leslie Csanyi died in 2019 when the plane in which they were traveling crashed into a Georgia neighborhood. A report by the National Transportation Safety Board blamed the plane, which lost its vacuum gauge shortly after takeoff.
"Examination of the engine revealed that the composite drive shaft of the vacuum pump had sheared, which likely resulted in the inflight loss of the pilot’s primary attitude reference," the report says, noting the pump had been installed about 16 years prior.
The plane was owned by Alan Day Overcash, who was contacted by Pamela Lowrie's lawyer, Daniel Barks of Speiser Krause, in January 2020. The following year, Barks accepted an offer from Overcash's insurer of the policy limit of $100,000.
A few months later, Barks told all involved he was no longer representing the estate. On Oct. 29, 2021, the estate filed suit for wrongful death and negligence against several defendants including Overcash.
But Overcash moved to enforce the previous settlement agreement, which the trial court granted. Lowrie said there was "no meeting of the minds" on all terms of the settlement and that Barks did not have the authority to enter into it. Two courts have now disagreed.
"The only terms within the agreement here on which the parties were required to assent were the sum of the settlement and the release of the claim against defendant Overcash," the appeals court ruled.
"(T)he fact that the terms of release or other administrative details were not contemplated within the agreement does not preclude enforcement of the settlement."
Testimony from the insurer's claims manager and Overcash's lawyer showed that no one else represented Lowrie from January 2020 to September 2021, which meant Barks had authority to enter into the settlement, the court found.
"While plaintiff and her new attorney submitted affidavits stating that Barks did not have the authority to settle her claim... these affidavits were the only evidence before the trial court supporting Barks' lack of authority," the ruling says.