Pierringer Settlement Agreement
There are two issues arising from the alliance, which the parties dealing with the Pierringer agreements should take into account: pierringer`s agreements have been in existence in Canada for some time. They were originally designed in the United States to address some of the barriers to resolution, often seen in multi-party conflicts. Pierringer`s agreements should allow one or more defendants, in a multi-party action, to resign themselves to the applicant and withdraw from the litigation, so that the other defendants are only liable for the harm they have actually caused. These two conditions for Bedard`s principle of overcompensation should limit the circumstances in which a recovery situation will occur in the Settlements of Pierringen. While some very favourable comparisons can still lead to overcompensation, by no longer taking into account co-accused negligence and by deducting fees for lawyers and clients, we expect recoveries to become rare. While the Court of Appeal left the final question to the Supreme Court of Canada as to whether the principle of overcompensation should apply in Pierringer`s comparative context, this decision resolved important aspects of the doctrine. The Bedard Court of Appeal had previously recognized that an applicant`s legal costs must be deducted from the total amount of the rebate before it is decided if it has been overcompensated. However, this recent decision significantly confirms that deductible fees are full-throttle lawyer and client fees, not party fees. The Alliance reaffirms the Court`s commitment to promote transactions in multi-party litigation and provides the parties with other useful guidance on the Court`s jurisdiction to prohibit further litigation against the installation of defendants under a Pierringer agreement.
Most importantly, however, the alliance appears to favour an approach that preserves the rights of the defendant by limiting the right of an inseminating defendant to an automatic investigation after settlement. As a result, the court made it easier for the defendants in Pierringer`s agreements to avoid litigation costs and costs. Proponents of a complainant maintaining a surplus of Pierringer`s habitat argue that this favours resolution. It is clear that if the benefit of overpayment is to be invoked by the complainants and not by the defendants, the complainants will be encouraged to merit this benefit by comparison.