The settlement agreement would state that the company denies liability. That protects the company from being forever precluded from denying liability (res judicata). But the fact that the company settled the case, and its terms (who paid who and how much) are not rendered inadmissible. The fact of settlement, if relevant, could be admitted in any future litigation and a jury could reasonably conclude, as posters suggest, that a company wouldn't pay that sort of money if it had a defensible case.
90 percent of litigation settles without a trial because it is brought against defendants with insurance. The insurance companies do not care about moral victories -- they care about costs of defense and costs of settlement. They usually control the litigation pursuant to the insurance contract and get to decide whether to settle without the insured's agreement.
Slashdot Mirror
The settlement agreement would state that the company denies liability. That protects the company from being forever precluded from denying liability (res judicata). But the fact that the company settled the case, and its terms (who paid who and how much) are not rendered inadmissible. The fact of settlement, if relevant, could be admitted in any future litigation and a jury could reasonably conclude, as posters suggest, that a company wouldn't pay that sort of money if it had a defensible case.
90 percent of litigation settles without a trial because it is brought against defendants with insurance. The insurance companies do not care about moral victories -- they care about costs of defense and costs of settlement. They usually control the litigation pursuant to the insurance contract and get to decide whether to settle without the insured's agreement.