545 S.W.3d 771
Ark. Ct. App.2017Background
- Kelley's (plaintiff) sued RBC (subcontractor) and API (contractor) for negligence arising from highway construction that allegedly blocked Kelley's entrance and caused lost business and property damage.
- Kelley's and API mediated and executed a confidential settlement agreement; RBC later learned of the settlement and sought discovery of the agreement.
- RBC amended its answer to add a cross-claim against API seeking contribution/apportionment of fault and requested the settlement terms to evaluate fault, damages, and settlement-credit/apportionment rights.
- The circuit court reviewed the settlement in camera and granted RBC’s motion to compel production of the mediated settlement, subject to a protective order, but declined to rule on admissibility or the cross-claim’s merits.
- Kelley's dismissed claims against API after the settlement and obtained permission to take an interlocutory appeal of the discovery order; the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a confidential mediated settlement is discoverable | Kelley's: mediation communications/records are confidential under Ark. Code Ann. §16-7-206 and irrelevant to RBC because API and RBC are not joint tortfeasors | RBC: settlement terms are relevant to apportionment/contribution, and the court may review in camera and order disclosure under §16-7-206(c) | Reversed: court abused discretion by compelling production without resolving whether joint-tortfeasor/contribution issues justified disclosure |
| Whether RBC is entitled to contribution, settlement credit, or allocation of fault | Kelley's: RBC and API are not joint tortfeasors so RBC has no right to contribution or credit; allocation and jury inclusion of API are improper | RBC: statutes and CJRA permit apportionment/credit; disclosure needed to prepare defense and claim contribution/credit | Court declined to decide on appeal (issues unresolved below); appellate court refused to address them because circuit court had not ruled |
| Appropriateness of interlocutory appeal of discovery order | Kelley's: appealed the compelled disclosure as involving confidentiality privilege and substantive law affecting non-settling parties | RBC/API: argued discovery necessary and in camera review authorized | Appeal allowed; appellate court reversed the discovery order for lack of preliminary rulings on contribution/apportionment |
Key Cases Cited
- Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. Phillips County Circuit Court, 381 S.W.3d 67 (Ark. 2011) (discusses scope of discovery orders and interlocutory appeal aspects)
- Chiodini v. Lock, 374 S.W.3d 835 (Ark. Ct. App. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard for discovery)
- Ark. Lottery Comm'n v. Alpha Mktg., 386 S.W.3d 400 (Ark. 2012) (appellate courts may not review matters on which trial court made no ruling)
- Nelson v. Ark. Rural Med. Practice Loan & Scholarship Bd., 385 S.W.3d 762 (Ark. 2011) (court will not issue advisory opinions)