Although his legal troubles are far from over, Lance Armstrong has one less lawsuit to worry about.
The Austin cyclist on Nov. 20 agreed to a settlement in a civil suit filed by Acceptance Insurance Co. The company wanted to recover $3 million in bonuses it paid to Armstrong for winning the Tour de France from 1999 to 2001.
Armstrong was accused of using performance-enhancing drugs in the Tour de France, and has been stripped of his seven wins in the race.
According to USA Today, the settlement agreement came one day before Armstrong was to give a deposition about his doping practices.
Armstrong's attorney, Tim Herman, confirmed to USA TODAY Sports that the case has been "resolved to the mutual satisfaction of the parties." He declined to reveal further details.
Acceptance Insurance has accused Armstrong and his legal team of “foot-dragging” and a “lengthy string of delays” over scheduling the deposition date, although he did provide written responses to questions from Acceptance.
The answers have not been shared with outside parties, the article states.
Armstrong is still facing three other lawsuits in state and federal court related to the doping allegations.
His attorneys have tried to have the depositions for all the suits consolidated, claiming Armstrong should not have to answer the same questions over and over. Just this week U.S. District Judge Robert L. Wilkins denied the request.
The federal suit filed by the U.S. Postal Service, the sponsor of Armstrong’s cycling team, and one of Armstrong’s former teammates, Floyd Landis.
Landis had admitted to doping, and said Armstrong participated in the doping scheme as well. Armstrong denied the allegations for years before recently confessing to Oprah Winfrey during a televised interview. He has not admitted his guilt since.
The suit says Armstrong and his team defrauded the U.S. Postal Service, which had spent at least $31 million between 2001 and 2004 to sponsor the cycling team. It argues that because Armstrong and other USPS cyclists used banned drugs and blood transfusions to gain an advantage, they violated their sponsorship contracts and the government should get its money back.