 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Copper Mountain Inc. v. Poma of America Inc.2/6/1995
the probability of liability uncertain"); Mahathiraj, 617 N.E.2d at 740-41 (holding that the reasonable range approach is "cumbersome if not unworkable, in many cases because it forces courts to foresee whether a jury would find a particular party liable, and if liable, the proportion of liability the party would likely bear as well as the sum of damages the jury would award").
Furthermore, the legislative history of the UCATA does not support use of the Tech-Bilt approach. The history behind the enactment of the UCATA indicates that the drafters intended the phrase "good faith" simply to require noncollusive conduct. The comment made by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws ("the Commissioners") with regard to subsection (b) of section 4 of the UCATA, provides in pertinent part as follows:
The requirement that the release or covenant be given in good faith gives the court occasion to determine whether the transaction is collusive, and if so there is no discharge.
The effect of [the prior version of] the 1939 Act has been to discourage settlements in joint tort cases, by making it impossible for one tortfeasor alone to take a release and close the file. . . .
It seems more important not to discourage settlements than to make an attempt of doubtful effectiveness to prevent discrimination by plaintiffs, or collusion in the suit. Accordingly the subsection provides that the release in good faith discharges the tortfeasor outright from all liability for contribution. Unif. Contribution Act ยง 4, 12 U.L.A. 99-100, Comrs. cmt. on sec. (b) (1975). Not only does this comment plainly state that the clause is intended only to give the court "occasion to determine whether the transaction was collusive," it also indicates that the Commissioners had as their express purpose the facilitation of settlement, a goal best fostered if the phrase in question is interpreted as requiring noncollusive conduct. Without more, we accept the intent of the drafters of the uniform law as that of our own General Assembly by its verbatim enactment of the uniform act provision. See Layne-Minnesota Co. v. Regents of the University of Minnesota, 266 Minn. 284, 123 N.W.2d 371, 376 (Minn. 1963) (indicating that intent of the drafters of a uniform act is assumed to be the intent of the legislative body enacting the provision).
Policy considerations also support the court of appeals' decision to adopt the noncollusive conduct definition of good faith. The policy favoring settlements is "perhaps the principal and most often discussed policy relevant to the issue of a 'good faith' settlement." Florrie Young Roberts, The "Good Faith" Settlement: An Accommodation of Competing Goals, 17 Loy.L.A.L.Rev. 841, 883 (1984) [hereafter "Roberts"]. We recently acknowledged this important consideration to be given Colorado's policy favoring settlement. Smith v. Zufelt, 880 P.2d 1178, 1185 (Colo. 1994) ("When considering alternative consequences, we will defer to results that encourage the settlement of disputes."). "Expanding the nature of a 'good faith' hearing beyond a procedural determination of lack of collusion to include substantive judicial scrutiny of the amount of the settlement has the simple effect of discouraging settlements." See supra, Kornhauser and Revesz at 476. Without question, one of the more important aspects considered by a defendant contemplating a settlement agreement is the degree to which he or she can be assured of the settlement's finality. Under the noncollusive conduct test applied by the court of appeals, a defendant can be relatively certain that his or her settlement will not be successfully attacked unless he or she entered the se
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Colorado Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|