In Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 547 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), the Second District held that a settlement agreement between a third-party tort claimant and an insured in which the claimant agreed that any judgment obtained against the insured would never be recorded and that collection would be enforced solely against the insurer did not constitute a release. 547 So. 2d at 150-51. The insurer in Auto-Owners argued that because the claimant promised not to record any judgment it obtained from the insured, the insurer had no obligations, as the insured was no longer "legally obligated to pay." Id. at 152. The Second District rejected this argument, however, noting that "the mere fact that a legally-obtained judgment may not be enforced against a party does not mean that the party is not 'legally obligated to pay.'" Id. The Second District rejected the notion that a promise not to record the judgment somehow barred an action against the insurer, reasoning: "The recording of a judgment, however, only protects the holder from the claims of third parties. It does not affect the status of the judgment between the litigants." Id. The Second District concluded that the language of the settlement clearly indicated the claimant's intention not to release the insurer from liability. See id. 150. The Second District found persuasive the claimant's argument that "to allow the insurer to escape liability because of documents to which it was not a party and which were executed with no intention of releasing the insurer would be unfair." Id. at 151. The Second District explained that several public policies influenced its decision, including: (1) the importance of enforcing the parties' intention; (2) the necessity of giving broad interpretation to coverage so as to protect injured persons; and (3) the encouragement of settlements, even if they are partial ones. See id.