 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Speers v. Tri-County Dermatology9/24/2001
doubt in this matter that the plaintiff has complied with the mandates of the Statute as it relates to the plaintiff's duty to attempt to negotiate a good faith settlement. Throughout the course of this matter, the plaintiff has consistently been receptive to the potential for settlement of this case. This occurred both in written correspondence and in oral communications to the Court and to defense counsel throughout the pretrial proceedings and during the course of the trial. In fact, the plaintiff was receptive to settlement even during the trial. Plaintiff did settle with the other defendant midway during the trial process. Throughout the course of this matter, the defendant consistently indicated that no settlement offer would be made. This position was steadfastly maintained at all pretrial levels and throughout the course of the trial. The defense maintained a "defend to the end" posture. The true question in this matter becomes whether the defendant rationally and reasonably evaluated its potential liability and exposure. There is no legal requirement that a defendant make a settlement offer in every case. If appropriate evaluation of all relevant factors would lead to a good faith belief that liability did not exist and that a verdict would not be rendered against the defendant, the defendant would not be in violation of the good-faith standard by refusing to extend a settlement offer.
Upon consideration of appellants' and appellee's arguments and the trial court's analysis as contained in its judgment entry, we do not find the trial court's decision constituted an abuse of discretion. Appellants' eighth assignment of error is overruled. The judgments of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas are affirmed.
Hoffman, J.
Edwards, P.J. and Boggins, J. concur
|