Cited by

plaintiff to enter into a settlement with one or more defendant s (the settling defendants) while maintaining a cause of action against one or more codefendants (the nonsettling defendants), and “the nonsettling defendants’ right to contribution can be cut off by [the] plaintiff[,] who agrees to indemnify the settling defendants against any claims of contribution.” d 918, 921 (Minn. 1978) (-12 (Wis.

In such instances, “[t]he jury should be given those facts necessary to arrive at a fair verdict to all parties, but as a general rule the amount paid in settlement should never be submitted.”

Likewise, a Pierringer settlement may also apply to cross-claims for indemnification, in which case “the indemnity cross-claims between all defendants should also be dismissed.”

“If there is evidence of co nduct which, if believed by the jury, would constitute negligence or fault on the part of the person inquired about, the fault or negligence of that party should be submitted to the jury.” Frey v. Snelgrove , (quotation omitted).

The negligence of an entity should be submitted to the jury “[i]f there is evidence of conduct which, if believed by the jury, would constitute negligence (or fault) on the part of the person inquired about.”

See, e.g., Dykes, d at 582-83; -22 (Minn. 1978).

(“If there is evidence of conduct which, if believed by the jury, would constitute negligence (or fault) on the part of [the settling defendants], the fault or negligence of th[e settling defendants] should be submitted to the jury.” (quotation omitted)); Rediske v. Minn. Valley Breeder’s Ass’n, 3

16 (“If there is evidence of conduct which, if believed by the jury, would constitute negligence (or fault) on the part of the person inquired about, the fault or negligence of that party should be submitted to the jury.”) (citations and internal quotations omitted).

(holding that when a settling 11 defendant “is called to testify by one of the remaining parties, the trial court should inform the jury of the effect of the release, so that they might consider any bias of the witness”).

Underwriters, Inc., (approving use of Pierringer release).

We approved the use of a

See, (noting that the goal of deciding whether a plaintiffs settlement with one defendant should be disclosed to the jury is “to preserve the remaining parties’ right to a fair trial”).

see generally W. Prosser & W. Page Keeton, Prosser and Keeton on Torts § 49, at 332 (5th ed. 1984) (explaining that at common law the release of one joint tortfeasor released all others because, in the eyes of the law, there was but one cause of action against those liable for the same acts).

The agreement stated that it was a Pierringer release as approved and interpreted by Pierringer v. Hoger, 21 Wis.2d 182

sal negligence; (2) the reservation of the remainder of plaintiffs causes of action against the nonset-tling defendants; and (3) plaintiff's agreement to indemnify the settling defendants from any claims of contribution made by the nonset-tling parties and to satisfy any judgment obtained from the nonsettling defendants to the extent the settling defendants have been released.” , 920 n. 1 (Minn. 1978) (citing John E. Simo-nett, Release of Joint Tortfeasors: Use of the Pierringer Release in Minne

The parties agreed that the settlement agreement is to be construed in accordance with the principles set forth in Pierringer v. Hoger, 21 Wis.2d 182

-22 (Minn.1978); Klimek v. State Farm Mut.

It is true that a Pierringer release relieves a settling defendant in a multiple tortfeasor situation from incurring additional liability, -23 (Minn.1978) (citing Pierringer v. Hoger, 21 Wis.2d 182 , ); the remaining defendants in such cases are not entitled to any credit or offset based on the settlement proceeds received by the plaintiff, -23 (Minn.1989) (relying on the intent of the parties

920 n. 1 (Minn.1978) (citing John Simonett, Release of Joint Tortfeasors: Use of the Pierringer Release in Minnesota, 3 Wm.