Cosgrave ← to resources

Changing Hats at the Last Minute: The Mary Carter Agreement

By Eugene H. Buckle

MEDICAL DEVICE SEMINAR

6/07/10 – MEDMARC

 

 

MEDICAL DEVICE SEMINAR
6/07/10 – MEDMARC

 

 

CHANGING HATS AT THE LAST MINUTE:

 

THE MARY CARTER AGREEMENT

 

By:  Gene Buckle 
Cosgrave Vergeer Kester LLP 
Portland, Oregon 
ebuckle@cvk-law.com

 

  1. What is a Mary Carter agreement?

 

    1. Pre-trial covenant not to enforce judgment.

 

    1. An agreement/contract between plaintiff and one of several defendants.

 

a) Not a settlement agreement for a sum certain.

 

    1. Terms of agreement.

 

a)      Place limitation on financial responsibility of agreeing defendant;

 

b)      Amount of financial responsibility of that defendant is variable;

 

c)      Usually in some inverse ratio to the amount of recovery (verdict) which plaintiff gets against the non-agreeing defendants; and

 

d)      Agreeing defendant remains at and participates in trial.

 

    1. Booth v. Mary Carter Paint Co., 202 So.2d 8 (Fla. App. 1967)

 

  1. Case example:  Rains v. SBM v. Weyerhaeuser

 

    1. Products liability: paraplegic v. retailer v. manufacturer.

 

    1. The high-low (Mary Carter) agreement (Ex. A).

 

a)      SBM pays $1.5 million minimum;

 

b)      SBM pays $2.0 million maximum; and

 

c)      SBM gets it all back from Weyerhaeuser if it proves its indemnity claim.

 

  1. Effect at trial in Rains case.

 

    1. Change in strategic goal.

 

a)      Verdict against own client;

 

b)      Verdict against other defendant(s); and

 

c)      More than $1.5 million.

 

    1. Change in party alignment.

 

a)      Dismissal of agreeing defendant from case?;

 

b)      Realign agreeing defendant as a plaintiff; and

 

c)      Voir dire challenges.

 

    1. Inadmissibility of Mary Carter agreement into evidence?

 

a)      Declare the agreement void: violation of public policy;

 

b)      Irrelevant and prejudicial terms; and

 

c)      Bias.

 

    1. Preliminary instruction (Ex. B) to veniremen and jury panel.

 

a) Jury not told specific numbers from agreement.

 

    1. Opening statement.

 

a)      Tell jury of existence of agreement in general?

 

    1. Cross-examination of plaintiff’s witnesses.

 

  1. Ethical impact of prior Joint Defense Agreement.

 

    1. See Ex. C.

 

    1. Allow other defendant to use your experts?

 

a)      If joint pre-trial utilization of experts.

 

    1. Your use at trial of confidential information learned only through non-agreeing defendant’s attorney.

 

a)      Call other defense lawyer as a witness for impeachment testimony.

 

    1. Divulging confidential defense information to plaintiff’s attorney.

 

  1. Result in Rains v. SBM v. Weyerhaeuser.

 

    1. Final argument.

 

    1. The verdict: Ex. D.

 

  1. 50 states survey re validity of Mary Carter agreements.

 

1.  See Ex. E.

 

Publications