Discussion of Sheehan Settlement Heated

CAPE MAY – On many occasions, City Solicitor Frank Corrado is the first to offer a joke and a smile when responding to questions from the public at Cape May City Council meetings. The information sought by the member of the public is delivered in a way that defuses tension over the issue.
Not so April 3 when Corrado was asked by Mayor Clarence Lear to respond to a question on how the recent $800,000 settlement figure was reached in the Robert Sheehan suit against the city.
Corrado was angered that a long, detailed presentation he made at an earlier meeting had been characterized by some as saying that the city simply made a guess at a settlement number. 
“That characterization is unfair to me and unfair to this council,” Corrado said.
In his remarks at an earlier council meeting, Corrado had walked through the many aspects of a settlement calculation. He pointed out that one needs to weigh the risks associated with a trial, the potential recoveries for each specific aspect of the plaintiff’s complaint, the nature of the opposition’s settlement demands, and some other factors.
In concluding those remarks, Corrado used a phrase he might reconsider today; he called the figure arrived at an “educated guess.” For some, the word “guess” is what was heard separate from the explanation of a rigorous review to arrive at it.
When the issue came up April 3, Corrado was visibly angry, but he offered yet another way of understanding the settlement process.
According to Corrado, four lawyers, “with perhaps a combined 100 years of experience at these things,” considered the city’s position. Two of the attorneys were affiliated with the city’s insurance fund. The other two were Corrado and an attorney he brought in to consult on the matter.
Corrado said that any settlement calculation must begin by considering the defendant’s case, both from a legal perspective and in terms of what he called “jury appeal.”
“Although the city had filed for a summary judgment,” Corrado said, “we knew that one was not forthcoming. If we proceeded, the next step was a full-blown trial.”
Corrado estimated that a trial might have taken as long as a month, or even two. “The costs of the trial to the city would have been a significant portion of the settlement offered,” he said.
Sheehan’s suit, filed in March 2015, was initiated when the city officials involved included a different city manager and a different composition of individuals on the council, as well as a different city solicitor.
“When we considered the city’s case,” Corrado added, “it was simply not that strong a case.” He pointed to the unpredictability of a jury trial and the considerable risks involved in any judgment.
“Legally the city’s case was not that strong,” he said. “When we considered its jury appeal, it was very weak,” he added.
Since one of the public speakers had referenced a recent judgment against the Borough of West Wildwood in the amount of $1.7 million, Corrado used that judgment as evidence of the risks of going to trial. The plaintiff in the West Wildwood case was also the chief of police.
“In West Wildwood they took the risk and lost,” Corrado said. He noted that at one point the small borough, with an annual budget of $2.5 million, was facing bankruptcy.
“The plaintiff actually got a judgment against the borough that froze the borough’s assets,” he said.
West Wildwood was saved from bankruptcy because it was able to work out a long-term payment plan with the defendant, Corrado explained.
“This council did not arrive at a settlement figure by pulling it out of thin air,” Corrado said. 
It was, according to Corrado, a process of reasoned and experienced judgment applied to the specifics of the city’s case and accounting for the demands of the plaintiff, who must in the end agree.
To contact Vince Conti, email vconti@cmcherald.com.