Opinion ID: 1156578
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: validity of agreement and bifurcation

Text: As noted, Campbell made three alternative requests to the trial court in response to his discovery of the settlement agreement shortly before trial: (1) to bifurcate the proceeding; (2) to void the agreement as contrary to public policy; or (3) to admit the settlement agreement into evidence so that the jury could more fairly weigh the testimony of the witnesses. We agree with the trial court's refusal to void the agreement or to bifurcate the proceeding. Of course, trial courts enjoy considerable discretion in deciding bifurcation and consolidation requests under rule 42 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g., Coleman v. Dillman, 624 P.2d 713, 716 (Utah 1981) (bifurcation under rule 42 may be accomplished for the convenience and at the discretion of the trial court); Raggenbuck v. Suhrmann, 7 Utah 2d 327, 329, 325 P.2d 258, 259 (1958) (absent prejudice to a litigant, the trial court has discretion to consolidate matters for trial); see also 9 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2392 (1971) (appellate court leaves discretion to trial court in bifurcating trials). Bifurcation was properly refused in this case because it is imperative that the issue of proportionate fault should be litigated between all joint tort-feasors in the same action and resolved by the same trier of the issues of fact. Madsen v. Salt Lake City School Bd., 645 P.2d 658, 663 (Utah 1982); see also C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2388, at 281 (1971) (If separate trial of an issue will involve extensive proof and substantially the same facts as the other issues, or if any saving in time and expense is wholly speculative, a separate trial will be denied. (footnote omitted)). Nor is the agreement void as against public policy. The public policy is to encourage settlements. Lahocki, 286 Md. at 727, 410 A.2d at 1046; accord, Alvin G. Rhodes Pump Sales v. Industrial Comm'n, 681 P.2d 1244, 1248 (Utah 1984); Rio Algom Corp. v. Jimco Ltd., 618 P.2d 497, 506 (Utah 1980). This agreement, which basically provided nothing more than that one party pay another a fixed sum in full satisfaction of the other's claim, did not contain the objectionable features which occasionally prompt courts to invalidate secretive settlement agreements. See, e.g., Lum v. Stinnett, 87 Nev. 402, 488 P.2d 347 (1971). However, we disagree with the trial court's decision to keep the jury totally ignorant of the changed adversarial positions caused by the settlement. A review of recent cases suggests a more appropriate handling of the issue.