SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Virginia Case Summary

Harris v. Joplin
Virginia Supreme Court
916 S.E.2d 80

Decided: June 12, 2025

Unsigned copy of document may be admitted into evidence to show the terms of an executed, but illegible, release.

Background

In June 2016, Harris rented a car from Enterprise, backed it out of a parking space, and struck Joplin. The claims adjuster for Enterprise offered to tender the policy limits of $25,000 and forwarded a proposed release that discharged all claims against Enterprise and Harris. Joplin’s attorney did not respond. In May, 2018, Joplin sued Harris for negligence, seeking $300,000 in damages. Two years later, Plaintiff’s lawyer spoke with the adjuster and advised that Joplin was willing to settle with Enterprise, but intended to pursue his claim against Harris. While they were on the phone, the firm emailed to the adjuster the release that Joplin had executed more than a year earlier, which relieved both Enterprise and Harris of all liability.

Harris filed a plea of accord and satisfaction, arguing that Joplin’s suit was barred by the release. At trial, Harris presented a copy of the executed release. Its terms were illegible, but Joplin admitted the release held his signature. Harris also offered into evidence a copy of the legible, but unsigned release that the adjuster originally prepared. Joplin objected on the grounds that using the unsigned document to prove the contents of the executed release violated the parol evidence rule. That rule prohibits admission of extrinsic evidence to modify or explain an unambiguous contract. The Circuit Court granted Harris’ plea of accord and satisfaction, holding that the parol evidence rule did not apply because the unsigned document was offered to confirm the terms of the illegible release, rather than to alter its terms. Joplin appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the parol evidence rule barred admission of the unsigned release. Harris appealed.

Holding

The Virginia Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals. It held that the parol evidence rule did not apply because the unsigned document was offered only to verify the terms of the executed release. Finding the Trial Court had correctly applied the law, the Supreme Court stated that review of the Trial Court’s decision to admit the unsigned document into evidence was limited to whether that determination was plainly wrong or without evidence to support it. It then entered final judgment for Harris, finding no error.

Questions about this case can be directed to Cynthia King at (804) 566-3571 or cking@tthlaw.com.