This is the second appearance of this case in this court. In the first, McKissick v. S. O. A., Inc. referred to herein as “McKissick I “,1 we reversed the grant of summary judgment to SOA, Inc. “SOA” and its president, Steven Aydelott, on Timothy McKissick’s claims for malicious prosecution and malicious arrest.2 The case proceeded to trial, and the jury, utilizing a special verdict form, rendered a verdict in favor of Aydelott. The jury concluded that Aydelott had been released from liability by reason of a Mutual Release the “Release” executed on November 21, 2005, by McKissick, SOA, and The Cincinnati Insurance Company, following an arbitration award in McKissick’s favor. McKissick appeals from the trial court’s judgment on the verdict, arguing that the court erred when it admitted the Release into evidence, denied his motion in limine, and excluded evidence of the arbitration award. We affirm. We begin with the facts set forth in McKissick I that preceded the execution of the Release: In the late summer of 2003, McKissick was employed as a project estimator with Allgood Electrical Company, Inc. “Allgood”. Allgood was hired as an electrical subcontractor by SOA, which was the general contractor for the construction of the Perry High School Multi-Purpose Facility the “Project”. During the fall of that year, Allgood left the Project due to a dispute over payment with SOA and Aydelott. McKissick averred that he worked out an agreement with Aydelott to complete the electrical work on the Project for which he would be paid $ 1,000 weekly plus the cost of materials. Because McKissick was not a licensed electrician, he arranged for his father-in-law, Albert Wayne Davis, who was a licensed electrician, to visit the site each week to inspect McKissick’s work. McKissick further averred that Aydelott knew about the arrangement with Davis and did not object to it. Eleven weeks after he began working on the Project, McKissick was terminated by Aydelott. On June 2, 2004, McKissick demanded payment for work performed in the amount of $ 9,373.94 and filed a lawsuit . . . in the Magistrate Court of Houston County in June 2004 the “2004 action”.3 The case was transferred to the Superior Court of Houston County, and almost a year later, on October 12, 2005, the court ordered the case to arbitration. On November 7, 2005, the arbitrator awarded damages in the amount of $4,853.22 to McKissick.
On November 21, 2005, the parties executed the Release, agreeing to dismiss the 2004 action in exchange for payment to McKissick of the amount awarded by the arbitrator. The Release also provided as follows: 1. All of the Parties . . . hereby fully release and discharge each other . . . from all rights, claims, disputes, and/or causes of action which each of the . . . Parties . . . now have or may ever have after the signing of this agreement against each other . . . arising out of or connected to either: a the events surrounding the work completed or not completed on; sic and, b the agreement between them that was the subject of the . . . civil action; both of which were regarding the construction project known as the . . . Project. 2. This release is intended by each of the Parties to release all claims for damages or losses to each Party . . . whether known or unknown, . . . which either of the Parties may have against the other. Each Party understands and acknowledges the significance and consequences of such specific intention to release all claims and hereby assumes full responsibility for any damages or losses that either Party may incur from the above referenced agreement and work performed pursuant thereto. Several months later, on June 2, 2006, McKissick filed a new civil action against SOA and Aydelott, asserting claims based on malicious prosecution and malicious arrest the underlying action,4 based on the following events as described in McKissick I as follows:
