A high-down agreement is a private contract that, if signed by litigants before a trial is concluded, limits the plaintiff`s recovery to a specific area. In short, a high-down agreement represents a “partial” settlement of a dispute in which the parties agree on a minimum claim for the plaintiff and a maximum payment by the defendant, and then, subject to the agreement, move on to the final resolution (jury verdict). The technique is attractive because it reduces the risk for both parties by avoiding extreme results – whatever the solution, the plaintiff is assured of a recovery of at least the low number, while the defendant limits his exposure to the high number. In addition, a defendant`s insurance company also protects the carrier from bad faith claims if the jury`s verdict goes beyond a limited insurance policy. However, agreements always happen because they offer mutual benefits. Juries are notoriously unpredictable. When leaving the courtroom to begin deliberations, neither party can predict the verdict with certainty or accurately estimate the amounts set by the jury. By entering into a high-low agreement, both parties essentially insure each other against their worst-case scenario: no payment for the claimant and personal liability for benefits that go beyond insurance coverage for the doctor. Top-down agreements appear to be enforceable in all U.S. jurisdictions. However, there are various requirements that different jurisdictions impose on the parties to these agreements for these agreements to be enforceable.

(In addition, there are a handful of interesting issues surrounding these agreements, such as.B. questions about how these agreements interact with the right to appeal judgments and things like that.) The requirements and restrictions that apply to these agreements fall under two main camps: (1) these agreements are contracts, and therefore the typical contractual principles apply, and (2) in light of the particular type of contract they are (e.B settlement agreements, which therefore affect and affect the court and possibly other parties to a case), there are additional factors and procedural safeguards, which relate to this particular type of contract. The following describes a handful of these requirements and wrinkles, each listed in the context of a particular jurisdiction. However, the issues and requirements raised in a particular jurisdiction generally exist in the same or similar form in other jurisdictions. In addition, according to Virginia jurisprudence and the Virginia Code, a high-low agreement is a settlement, and therefore the parties must ask the court not to render a judgment. See Go. Code § 8.01-35.1; Smith vs Settle , 254 Va. 348, 351 (1997). The Maryland Special Court of Appeals closed Maslow v. Vanguri, 896 A.2d 408 (Md.

Ct. Spec. App.), cert. dismissed, 903 A.2d 416 (Md. 2006), that an appeal filed by a plaintiff after an adverse judgment lost the defendant`s obligation to pay under a high-low agreement. The high-bottom agreement expressly provided that the parties would waive any right of appeal with a jury verdict. After the plaintiff lost on appeal, the plaintiff attempted to enforce the high-bottom agreement. The defendant argued that the appeal constituted a material breach, which therefore allowed the agreement to be set aside, and the court agreed, since the breach of the duty not to appeal allowed the defendant to request a resignation. According to the authors, their work “goes beyond the existing literature on civil case resolution, which focuses primarily on the extremities of the dispute settlement spectrum – cases that are completely settled or abandoned, and cases that lead to a full trial. In reality, dispute resolution is done on a continuum. [The ability to reach agreements from the top down (as well as the ability to pursue arbitration and the ability to determine certain facts or legal issues, while a judge or jury may continue to decide other issues)] make it clear that settlement behaviour in disputes involves much more than just an out-of-court settlement.

Finally, if a major decision is sure to trigger a series of exhausting and costly appeals, a high-down agreement includes a settlement and eliminates the possibility that the original decision will be overturned – a scenario that would leave the plaintiff with nothing and profoundly deplete the financial reserves of an emergency lawyer. .