The settlement of an action is generally considered a positive measure for applicants. Not only is the case effectively closed, but the defendant generally undertakes to make money or other consideration available to the plaintiff in exchange for the release of claims and other commitments of the applicant under the agreement. However, an ignorant applicant may suffer unintended consequences if the applicant`s lawyer does not pay particular attention to the terms of the transaction agreement and the hearing. In cases where there are multiple defendants, there are a number of reasons why a complainant might be willing to accept less from one defendant than by another defendant. Sometimes a plaintiff might be willing to accept less from a defendant in the hope or expectation that he may demand much more money from another tortentum. A Mary Carter agreement is such an agreement, in which the accused nevertheless goes to court, but the colonist`s liability is limited. Often, the amount to be paid by the defendant depends on the amount that will be recovered from the unafforded defendant or defendants. In some cases, the amount paid by the defendant is inversely proportional to the amount recovered by the applicant against the non-resident defendants or defendants. That`s right. Med. Int`l, Inc.
v. Nat`l Union Fire Ins. Co., 244 F.3d 715, 718 – n.1 (9. Cir. 2001) (quote from Black`s Law Dictionary 974 (6th edition 1990)). In other words, it is a kind of transaction contract in which the colonizable party stays in the case to support its opponent against the unse established defendant. The name comes from a case in Florida State Court, such as „a contract whereby a co-accused secretly concludes with the complainant that if such a defendant defends himself in court, his maximum liability will be reduced proportionately by increasing the liability of the other co-accused.“ Ward v. Ochoa, 284 So.2d 383, 387 (Fla. 1973) (referring to Booth v. Mary Cater Paint Co., 202 So.2d 8 (Fla. App. Ct.
1967). There are usually three essential elements of a classic Mary Carter agreement: Most defendants will not agree to hand over money to the complainant before the lawsuit is closed. So what will happen to a complainant if the complaint is closed and the defendant does not pay? If the plaintiff did not include certain safeguards in the transaction agreement, he may have essentially waived claims worth $300,000 in the lawsuit in exchange for a $150,000 claim for breach of the transaction agreement.
