Joint tortfeasor releases were the subject to two reported appellate decisions this week. The subject of joint tortfeasor releases is a complicated issue that can impact or destroy claims by plaintiffs against a nonsettling defendant if the release with the settling defendant is not properly crafted. Details of the different types of joint tortfeasor releases and the effect they can have on claims against nonsettling defendants will be discussed in the next blog on the case of Spence v. Julian, issued by the Court of Special Appeals on October 26th.
Another case however, Tempel v. Murphy,decided by the Court of Special Appeals on October 28th, presents a completely discernable and straightforward issue related to a nonsettling defendant's entitlement to pretrial discovery of the content of a joint tortfeasor release between the plaintiff and settling defendants. The court in Tempel ruled that a nonsettling defendant is not entitled to discover the amount of a settlement but is entitled to see other content within a joint tortfeasor release to enable the requesting defendant to prepare their case for trial.
The Court (Ayler, J.) cited Maryland Rule 2-402(a), which states that a party may discover "any matter . . . that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party. . . " and concluded that the amount of settlement contained within a joint tortfeasor release is not relevant to a determination of liability or the amount of damages allegedly sustained by a plaintiff. Only after the jury reaches it verdict does the information become relevant to allow a court to apportion damages appropriately between all affected defendants. The Court reiterated that discovery is intended to require disclosure of the facts giving rise to the litigation to allow the discovering party the opportunity to prepare timely their claims and defenses without undue surprise.
Although the amount of the settlement was deemed irrelevant and not discoverable pre-trial, the Court held that other terms of a joint tortfeasor release are discoverable pre-trial because the nonsettling party is entitled to know what evidence they must offer at trial to reduce their exposure to plaintiff's damage claim, e.g., whether the nonsettling defendant must prove the joint tortfeasor status of the settling parties which is required by some releases known as Swigert releases.
On an unrelated issue, the Court upheld the trial court's refusal to grant a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and rejected defendants' argument that the plaintiffs' economist's testiumony on lost future earnings of the decedent was speculative and should not have been considered by the jury. The economist offered opinions as to the date the decedent would have retired for purposes of calculating the future income loss claimed by the wrongful death beneficiaries. Absent an express statement by the decedent while alive, the economist based his opinions on various statistical information on average retirement ages and testified the decedent would have retired at age 66 or 67. He conceded during cross-examination that he did not know exactly when the decedent would have retired. The Court ruled that a jury could reach conclusions on all issues related to lost support claims, including decedent's likely retirement age, based on all the evidence including the amount of future lost earnings, the decedent's health, the testimony of the family, his financial situation and statistics as to when he would have retired.
Belsky, Weinberg & Horowitz is a full service Maryland law firm with practice groups in the areas of plaintiffs' personal injury, medical malpractice, workers' compensation, social security disability and bankruptcy. We supply this and other information on our website as educational materials to keep our readers abreast of important legal developments that relate to the areas in which we practice. Keeping abreast of legal developments is an important responsibility our firm takes very seriously. We make every effort to report new cases and legal issues objectively, although opinions are at times expressed. Should you have any questions about the firm or any information on our website, please contact our office by clicking here or by calling (410) 234-0100.
Thank you for your interesting in our firm.
