General release does not cover unknown claims (CIV § 1542)

Section 1542 protects claims the releasing party did not know or suspect at the time, but only where the release does not expressly waive it. The outcome turns on two facts: whether the signed form contains a knowing waiver of the section, and whether the driver had already begun treatment for the neck before signing. If the pain was already being investigated, it was suspected, and the protection is gone whatever the form says.

The insurer agrees to reopen the medical part of the claim up to a capped amount for treatment of the neck, and both sides sign a fresh release naming that treatment as excluded.

The waiver reaches unknown claims, so the question is not whether the release was broad but whether this claim was genuinely unknown. It turns on whether the employee had already queried the commission before signing: a query is a suspicion, and a suspected claim is outside the protection even without a waiver. If neither side had ever mentioned it, the express waiver is what decides the point.

The company pays the outstanding commission as a separate wage item rather than as settlement money, and the employee confirms in writing that no other pay item is outstanding.

Reading section 1542 backwards is the common error: it is a protection, and the capitalised paragraph is there to remove it. What matters is scope, meaning whether the release is drafted to cover all claims arising from the property or only the specific escape of water described in it, and whether a further leak would be a new event rather than an unknown consequence of the same one.

The release is narrowed to the water event it describes, and the parties add a line confirming that a fresh escape from the same source is not covered by it.

Does a plaintiff's rejection of a prelitigation settlement offer that includes a waiver of Civil Code section 1542 preclude the plaintiff from recovering attorney fees under the Song-Beverly Act?

Rejecting a prelitigation settlement offer because it includes a waiver of Civil Code section 1542 and other extraneous terms is not unreasonable, and does not bar the plaintiff from recovering attorney fees.

Rejecting the prelitigation settlement because of these unfavorable extraneous terms was not unreasonable.

Does a waiver of Civil Code section 1542 in a settlement agreement bar a subsequent lawsuit for claims that could have been brought in the first action?

The court held that when a disabled person settles and releases all known and unknown claims and expressly waives the protection of Civil Code section 1542, they are contractually barred from suing in a second lawsuit for any violation that previously existed and could have been enjoined in the first lawsuit.

We hold that when a disabled person sues a business owner due to an accessibility violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, § 51 et seq.) and the California Disabled Persons Act (Civ. Code, § 54 et seq.) and then settles and releases all known and unknown claims and waives the protection of Civil Code section 1542, the disabled person is contractually barred from suing the business owner in a second lawsuit regarding any violation that previously existed and could have been enjoined in the first lawsuit pursuant to Civil Code section 55.

Did the release's failure to mention Civil Code section 1542 render it unenforceable?

No, because nothing in section 1542 requires that it be designated in the release or that a party specifically waive its provisions; the release was clear, explicit, and comprehensible, and the plaintiff understood he was releasing all claims.

Nothing in that statute requires that it be designated in the release or that a party specifically waive its provisions.

Whether Civil Code section 1542 prevents the enforcement of a general release when the releasing party was aware of the underlying damage but did not realize the release covered such claims.

The court held that Civil Code section 1542 does not apply because the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the further damage at the time she signed the release, and the statute only protects against unknown or unsuspected claims.

That is not within the purview of Civil Code section 1542.

Does a general release that explicitly waives Civil Code section 1542 and covers unknown claims bar a later action for newly discovered contamination?

A general release that explicitly waives section 1542 and covers unknown claims is enforceable, and the releasor cannot later avoid it based on claims of fraud or economic duress absent specific circumstances such as actual fraud or fiduciary duty breach.

Hospice cannot now contend it did not understand the risks it assumed or did not intend to release County from unknown problems.

Can a general release that explicitly waives Civil Code section 1542 be enforced to bar unknown claims despite the releasor's later claim of unawareness and lack of intent?

Yes, a general release that explicitly references and waives section 1542, entered into knowingly and with the advice of counsel, effectively bars unknown claims and the releasor's uncommunicated subjective intent does not create a disputed issue of fact.

We conclude it is possible for a general release to effectively accomplish its primary purpose: to enable parties to end their relationship and permanently terminate their mutual obligations.