Opinion ID: 2549172
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Bullinger: Discoverable, Relevant Releases

Text: Scapa argues that under Bullinger, it is entitled to post-verdict, pre-judgment discovery on the amounts that Mr. Saville received from any and all § 524(g) Trusts and that a subsequent reduction in the jury award must be effectuated as a matter of law regardless of the language of the settlement agreements. Mr. Saville claims, however, that because the § 524 Trust settlement agreements individually address whether or not their payments to the claimant should impact a subsequent judgment won by the claimant in court against a non-bankrupt / non-settling defendant, that the only discoverable trust payments from Celotex, H.K. Porter and Manville were already disclosed and accounted. Bullinger establishes that § 524(g) Trust settlement agreements and payment amounts are discoverable and that the provisions in such agreements govern whether off-sets should be made to a verdict. In 1995, numerous plaintiffs filed suit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City alleging that exposure from the products of Owens Corning Fiberglas Corporation, Porter Hayden Company ( Bullinger Petitioners), and numerous others caused them to contract asbestos-related mesothelioma. Upon a return of a favorable jury verdict the plaintiffs provided information to the trial court for in camera consideration regarding settlements with the Manville Trust and with other settling joint tort-feasors. Bullinger, 350 Md. at 458, 713 A.2d at 964. The trial court denied the Bullinger Petitioners's requests to consult the settlement information and the Court of Special Appeals held that those amounts were properly withheld. We disagreed. We held that the trial court erred in refusing to allow petitioners to inspect the amounts of the settlement agreements, and we vacated the judgment as to the apportionment of liability. Bullinger, 350 Md. at 459, 713 A.2d at 965. On remand, we directed the Circuit Court for Baltimore City to apply the preclusive effect of ... [the] federal court action in Manville VI [ In re Joint E. & S. Dists. Asbestos Litig., 929 F.Supp. 1, 9 (E.D.N.Y. & S.D.N.Y.1996)], which would pre-date the trial court's apportionment determination on remand. Bullinger, 350 Md. at 459, 713 A.2d at 965. In Manville VI, the federal district court predicted that the Maryland Court of Appeals would exclude the Trust in determining the number and size of pro rata shares and would credit amounts settled by the Trust to defendants adjudicated joint tortfeasors who have not already settled. [20] Manville VI, 929 F.Supp. at 4. In light of the substantive conclusion reached by the federal district court while interpreting Maryland law, this Court, in Bullinger, precluded the Maryland litigants and the Manville Trust from re-litigating the issue of apportionment of damages and directed the Maryland trial court to adopt the apportionment determination explained by the federal district court. Our holding in Bullinger, therefore resolved treatment of the provisions of a specific Trust, which expressly required that local law be applied to the determination of off-sets. In Bullinger, we directed the trial court to permit post-verdict discovery of the negotiated settlements [that] may have been irrelevant in the pre-trial stage, but became relevant to the determination of apportionment of damages under the Joint Tort-feasors Act once the verdicts were rendered against petitioners. Bullinger, 350 Md. at 461, 713 A.2d at 966. Concluding that [t]he sums and certain of the conditions of the settlements ... are relevant and discoverable, we specifically stated: Petitioners had a need to inspect so much of the settlement agreement as was relevant to a determination of whether, and how much, the judgments against them might be affected by (1) the way in which the agreement classified the settling defendant, i.e., tort-feasor or non tort-feasor, (2) whether a pro tanto or pro rata release was intended, and (3) the amount paid for the release. Bullinger, 350 Md. at 468-69, 713 A.2d at 970; see Md. Rule 2-402(a) (permitting discovery of any matter, not privileged that is relevant to the action). Under the Act, a non-settling joint tort-feasor is entitled to a reduction on a claim against it when the plaintiff has entered into a release with a joint tort-feasor. Bullinger, 350 Md. at 469, 713 A.2d at 970. In lieu of litigation, a § 524(g) Trust may enter into a negotiated settlement agreement with an individual claimant or class of claimants with the intention of discharging any alleged liability for asbestos-related personal injury. Such an agreement may address the liability of the bankrupt company, in general, or in specific as relevant to potential litigation between the settling claimant and third parties. For instance, the Manville Trust, stipulated to the Trust's tort-feasor status, stating: The Trust shall be treated in litigation between Beneficiaries of the Trust as a legally responsible tortfeasor under applicable law, without the introduction of further proof. See Bullinger, 350 Md. at 471, 713 A.2d at 971 (The release between the plaintiff and the settling defendant may provide that the settling defendant, is, or is considered, a joint tort-feasor, in which case the nonsettling defendant is entitled to a reduction in the verdict.) (citing Martinez v. Lopez, 300 Md. 91, 94-95, 476 A.2d 197, 198-99 (1984)); see also Jones v. Hurst, 54 Md.App. 607, 610-11, 459 A.2d 219, 221-22 (1983) (involving an express denial of liability coupled with language in the release stating that the settling defendant would be considered a joint tort-feasor to the same extent and effect as if judgments had been rendered against them (sic) as joint tort-feasors (sic).). In the instant case, the substance of the settlement agreements between Mr. Saville and any and all § 524(g) Trusts will determine the amount of the reduction of the judgment. [21] Accordingly, we rely upon our holding in Bullinger and direct that on remand to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, the court should: (1) permit discovery for all settlement agreements between Mr. Saville and § 524(g) Trusts; (2) and reduce the judgment according to the manner explained infra, noting that denials of liability with no provisions for treatment of the Trust as a joint tort-feasor will result in no off-set for that particular Trust, just as analogous releases would be treated under the Joint Tort-feasors Act. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART; CASE REMANDED TO THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS WITH DIRECTION TO REMAND THE CASE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. COSTS TO BE PAID 75% BY PETITIONER AND 25% BY RESPONDENT.