Confidential Settlement Agreements Present a Host of Problems

I often read the entries on another blog titled Plaintiff Trial Lawyer Tips.  A recent entry on this blog titled Secrecy in Settlement Negotiations by Paul Luvera discusses a significant issue concerning the settlement of lawsuits.  The issue, confidential settlement agreements, is one our firm has long considered an area of concern.  In his entry, Paul writes clearly why he is against secret settlements.  I agree completely with Paul's reasons for not favoring secrecy.  Like Paul, I try to explain to my clients the issues surrounding confidentiality.  I discourage my clients from agreeing to these settlement arrangements but will honor their decision if they choose to do so.

Why are confidential settlements an issue?  Our tort system should work to provide accountability, to assess just compensation to victims, and to deter wrongful conduct.  A secret settlement defeats all these purposes.  By making a settlement confidential, a defendant is much less likely to actually change their dangerous conduct.  Others may also be injured because the problem has now been concealed from the public.  When injured, these other individuals will then not benefit from the information gained in the earlier claim that could assist them in seeking justice.  As a matter of public policy, these secret settlements harm society as a whole.

On a case-by-case level, entering into a confidential settlement can also expose both the injured party and their legal counsel to future liability.  When parties enter into a settlement agreement they expect the issues to be completely resolved.  Yet, any accidental disclosure of the deal in the future could result in both the injured party and their counsel being sued for a return of the confidential settlement proceeds or other damages.  Instead of resolving the initial litigation, a confidential settlement can create future litigation.  In his blog entry, Paul notes several actual instances when such agreements have resulted in future litigation.

To all of the issues expressed by Paul, I would add that confidential settlements can also create income tax problems for the injured person.  I am no tax attorney.  I certainly do not intend this post to provide specific advice concerning our ever-changing tax laws.  However, our tax laws exclude some types of damages from a person's income, such as those generally received solely for a physical injury.  That is, such damages may not be taxable as income.  However, other types of damages or compensation may be taxable as income.  By entering into a confidential settlement, the injured party risks the IRS claiming that he received money not as damages for his personal injury, but instead, as payment (and thus income) to stay silent.

Has the IRS ever made such a claim?  Yes, in the case of Amos v. Commissioner.  In January, 1997, Eugene Amos was operating a television camera during a professional basketball game.  During the game, Dennis Rodman jumped for a ball and landed in a group of photographers.  As he returned to the court, Rodman kicked Amos in the groin.  An ambulance took Amos to the hospital.  He later pursued a personal injury claim against Rodman which was settled with a confidentiality provision.  When he later filed his tax return, Amos excluded from his gross income the settlement proceeds as personal injury damages.  Unfortunately, the IRS saw the issue differently, concluding that the proceeds were not personal injury damages but paid in return for confidentiality.  Under the IRS conclusion, the money would be considered taxable income.  Amos and the IRS then litigated the issue in the U.S. Tax Court.  The Court eventually reached a conclusion that some of the proceeds were attributable to the confidentiality provision, and thus, taxable.

How do you avoid this potential problem in a settlement of a lawsuit?  The obvious and easiest way is simply to settle without a confidentiality clause.  However, if you do settle with such a clause, don't simply ignore the risk of tax problems.  Instead, carefully consider the settlement language to minimize the risk.  Although it is very important to carefully review the language contained in settlement papers for a number of reasons, I am constantly amazed at how often attorneys and their clients will simply sign a proposed agreement with little or no regard for its potential impact in the future.

We are not tax attorneys.  However, our office has considered a number of recommended approaches to address the tax risk in confidential settlement agreements.  Several of these approaches are also suggested in an article by the law firm of Mallor, Clendening, Grodner & Bohrer, LLP.  These suggestions include:

  1. Mingle the confidentiality terms throughout the agreement so that they do not appear as a significant or distinct section.
  2. Explicitly state in the agreement that all settlement funds are being paid only because of the personal injury.
  3. Negotiate a separate confidentiality agreement with other money paid for it (which would be taxable).  This is often accomplished by simply allocating a portion of the total settlement proceeds to the confidentiality agreement.
  4. Include language in the settlement agreement that the defendant will indemnify your client for any adverse tax consequences.

On the whole, I still consider confidentiality clauses in settlement agreements to be a bad idea for my clients.  When allowed by my client, I will simply reject them completely.  However, when they become necessary, you must then see that the agreement is written as carefully as possible to minimize any future risks.  This includes the risk of adverse tax consequences as well as other anticipated future risks.

 

The Protections of Alabama's Workers' Compensation Laws Are Not Limited to Employees Who Enjoyed Perfect Health Prior to Their Injury

It's a scenario repeated frequently by callers to our office.  First, the caller tells us that he suffered a work-related accident and injury.  Then, the caller tells us that the workers' compensation carrier has simply denied his claim on the basis he had a "pre-existing" injury or condition.  Often, these denials involve some prior injury that occurred years ago or some prior condition that did not prevent the person from working his current job.

How does Alabama's Workers' Compensation Act treat the issue of "pre-existing" conditions?  Although I learned long ago that every case presents unique facts and issues, here are two general principles in Alabama:

  1. A pre-existing condition that did NOT affect the employee's work performance before the disabling injury is generally NOT considered a pre-existing condition under Alabama's Workers' Compensation Act.
  2. An employee is not prevented from collecting workers' compensation benefits even though the worker has a pre-existing condition, if the employment aggravates, accelerates, or combines with, a latent disease or infirmity to produce disability.

Alabama's workers' compensation laws are complex with different issues and standards for different types of injuries.  The Act treats accidental injuries, repetitive trauma injuries, and occupational diseases, differently in many ways.  However, these two principles are important to keep in mind.

If the insurance carrier claims your condition is "pre-existing" there are several things you can do.  First, don't simply accept a denial if you were previously able to work your job.  Second, if your claim has progressed to a lawsuit, then your attorney can and should seek discovery on this issue.  Your employer often possesses numerous documents that would support your case.  These documents can include time sheets and work calendars which can be used to show you worked a full schedule.  They can include performance reviews and production reports which can be used to show your work performance was excellent.  Witnesses such as co-workers can also testify that you fully performed your job prior to the injury.  In my practice, I typically depose my client's supervisor in an effort to get an admission on this topic.

Alabama's workers' compensation laws are not intended to protect just those few who enjoyed perfect health prior to their work-related injury.  Instead, our laws were intended to protect all workers by providing necessary medical care and a base level of benefits.  As a result, if you were able to perform your job prior to suffering a work-related injury, don't simply accept a blanket denial of your claim.

Alabama Law Protects Sales Representatives and Their Right to Commissions

The case is all too common.  A manufacturer hires an independent sales representative.  The sales representative works hard to bring in an important customer.  Yet, once the manufacturer thinks the customer relationship is secure, the manufacturer then begins to cut out the sales representative in an effort to increase its profits.

The manufacturer never paid an employee a salary to find, cultivate, or secure the valuable customer.  The manufacturer never incurred costs to locate the customer.  Instead, the manufacturer had an agreement with a sales representative that paid commissions based on the sales generated by the relationship.  What the manufacturer often wants is the profit of a customer relationship with no expense, including the expense of paying the agreed-upon sales commissions.  This scenario - the clear abuse of the relationship between a manufacturer and its sales representative - has occurred so often that the Alabama Legislature enacted a special statute, the Alabama Sales Representative's Commission Contracts Act, to address it.  Our courts have addressed the Act and its protections in cases like Lindy Manufacturing Company v. Twentieth Century Marketing, Inc., 706 So.2d 1169 (Ala. 1997).

Our legislature considered it so important to remedy this abuse, it crafted a statute that allows treble damages plus attorneys' fees.  The statute and its protections are vitally important to Alabama's economy.  The local economy, in the Huntsville area, is largely based on the development, production, and sales, of advanced technological products.  Sales representatives often cultivate and secure the long-term customer relationships that fuel business growth.

A bad economy only increases the cost cutting measures by manufacturers.  However, when cost cutting measures involve breaching a prior agreement or denying someone their proper compensation, it is wrong.  When this happens, the sales representatives often simply give up.  In Alabama, they don't have to walk away from their hard work.  This is one scenario where Alabama law genuinely protects the victim.