Opinion ID: 1749387
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Production of the Joint Defense Agreement

Text: La'Ronda asserts that the defendants entered into a joint defense agreement that was against public policy. We are cited to Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Little, 276 Ark. 511, 639 S.W.2d 726 (1982), and La'Ronda argues that the defense agreement is similar to a Mary Carter agreement. A Mary Carter agreement is one in which a plaintiff secretly agrees with a defendant that if the plaintiff recovers from another defendant, the agreeing defendant's liability will be reduced. Firestone, 276 Ark. at 513-14, 639 S.W.2d at 728. Secret agreements between plaintiffs and one or more of several multiple defendants may mislead judges and juries, and they border on collusion. Id., 639 S.W.2d at 728. Such an agreement subverts the adversarial process by collusion between the very parties who are thought by the jury to be pitted against each other. Id. In this case, the defense agreement resolves how the appellees would collectively address defense issues that were common to each appellee. There is no reference to an agreement with the plaintiff as in Firestone . La'Ronda offers no evidence or convincing authority for the proposition that the defense agreement would subvert the adversarial process. Further, La'Ronda provides no convincing authority or argument as to why the principles of a Mary Carter agreement should be applied to an agreement between defendants regarding how they will handle defense issues common to all defendants. There is no merit to this issue. Affirmed.