Lead Paint
Lead paint cases often involve multiple plaintiffs (often siblings) as well as multiple defendants. Because a significant aspect of lead paint cases involves the duration and location of lead paint exposure, lead paint defendants not only disagree with the Plaintiffs about liability, but often with each other about proportionality of any damages. I handled a settlement conference for the Baltimore City Circuit Court. There were two sibling plaintiffs but three distinct addresses for potential exposure. Although all of the defendants were interested in settling, they all each insisted that they would not pay a higher percentage of the total settlement than what they thought was fair for their particular address. Further complicating matters was that the defendants were not willing to either negotiate with each other or disclose to their co-defendants what their perceived percentage was. Thus, settlement without a mediator was not possible. Plaintiffs disclosed to me the total they would accept, which was a much different figure than the one given to the defendants. Over a period of three hours at the courthouse and another two hours at my office, the defendants were willing to disclose to me in confidence both the amounts and percentages they were willing to pay to settle the case. Two defendants added another wrinkle: each would only seek approval to pay its percentage if the primary defendant paid at least 50% of the total. As the only person in the room who knew all of the percentages, I was able to do the math to determine that there was a way to make the numbers work for everyone so trial could be avoided. I was not permitted by the parties to disclose the percentages until after settlement was approved by each party. As a result, I once the figures for each defendant met each defendant’s requirements and the total met the Plaintiff’s demand, I told each party to seek approval and that had worked out the figures but could not disclose them until approval had been obtained. Once all the approvals were received, I disclosed the final amounts and all parties were fully satisfied with the results. |
Workers Compensation
In a case for the Circuit Court, these two parties arrived at their settlement conference agreeing on one point: the case could not be settled. About 60 minutes later, it settled. The parties presented for a workers’ compensation appeal from a Commissioner’s decision regarding permanent partial disability. After the parties said the case could not settle, I asked them to explain the case to me in front of their opponent. Upon hearing the parties’ descriptions, it became clear to me that there was much more common ground than the parties’ perceived. They also explained that settlement was not possible because the case involved not only the instant dispute over the disability rating, but the possibility of future medical bills and worsening of the claimant’s condition. One of the key items for both parties, it turned out, was a desire to avoid years of litigation and put an end to the matter. I discussed with each a party privately what the current and future matters might cost in money terms, rather than disability percentages. I learned in confidence that the employer would be willing to pay an amount to resolve all claims that was very close to the number the claimant would accept to achieve the same goal. With a bit more persistence, the case settled and the parties were saved not just the pending trial, but all litigation in the future. |