Mary Carter Agreements, Litigation Settlements

In multi-party litigation, sometimes some but not all parties will reach a settlement agreement. These are broadly referred to as “Mary Carter Agreements.” They can be signed for any number of reasons strategically.
The Missouri Supreme Court has found that a typical Mary Carter agreement has the following features:
1) The liability of the settling defendant is limited, and the plaintiff is guaranteed a minimum recovery; 2) The settling defendant remains a party to the pending action without disclosing the full agreement to the non-settling parties and/or the judge and jury, absent court order; and 3) If judgment against the non-settling defendant is for more than the amount of settlement, any money collected will first offset the settlement so that the settling defendant may ultimately pay nothing. Newman v. Ford Motor Co., 975 S.W.2d 147, 149 (Mo. 1998).
Contact questions questions relating to Mary Carter Agreements and litigation generally.

Related Articles

Premises Liability: Third-Party Criminal Acts

November 22, 2023

As a general rule, if a customer/invitee of a business is harmed by a third-party criminal act, the business is not responsible. The rationale for this rule is that criminal acts are rarely foreseeable. Early v. Dunn, 670 S.W.3d 47, 51 (Mo. App. E.D. 2023). There are a number of exceptions. First, a duty arises…

Read More

Mootness, Exceptions

October 19, 2023

Courts generally shy away from rendering decisions in moot cases. A case is moot when “the question presented for decision seeks a judgment upon some matter which, if the judgment was rendered, would not have any practical effect upon any then existing controversy.” DCM v. Pemiscot County Juvenile Office, 578 S.W.3d 776, 780 (Mo. 2019). There…

Read More

Comity, Multiple Lawsuits, Litigation

October 11, 2023

In complex situations, it is not uncommon for multiple lawsuits to be pending in multiple jurisdictions. When this occurs, one court, in the interests of comity, may allow the other court to handle the entire dispute. At the state level in Missouri, comity is not an ironclad rule, but a rule of “practice, convenience, and…

Read More

Contracts: General versus Specific Provisions

October 2, 2023

Parties are bound to the terms of the contract they sign, unless induced by fraud, duress, or undue influence. Lehman v. Automotive Investments, LLC, 608 S.W.3d 733, 738 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020). In analyzing contracts, courts focus on the plain and ordinary meaning of the language used. Id. Often times, however, a conflict can arise between what…

Read More
Scroll to Top