Family Disagreement Over Whether to Settle a Wrongful-Death Claim
Published .
The general concept
A family may agree about who qualifies as a wrongful-death beneficiary and how any recovery should be allocated, yet disagree about whether to accept a settlement at all. The attorney does not decide for the family. The attorney must identify the clients, explain the offer and material risks and alternatives, protect each client’s interests, and follow the client’s settlement decision within the scope of that representation.
Each client’s settlement authority
Under Maryland Rule 19-301.2(a), the attorney must abide by a client’s decision whether to settle that client’s matter. If one attorney represents multiple beneficiaries and the settlement is aggregate, Rule 19-301.8(g) requires each client’s informed consent, in a writing signed by the client or confirmed on the record, after disclosure of the claims and each person’s participation in the proposed settlement. A family vote or the personal representative’s preference does not substitute for an individual client’s decision or the required consent.
The wrongful-death settlement process
Maryland’s one-action rule and the nature of wrongful-death claims complicate a disagreement: a settlement resolving the wrongful-death action generally requires the mutual consent of all beneficiaries or court approval. Walker v. Essex recognizes court approval as an alternative, and Ace American Insurance Co. v. Williams explains that approval is for exceptional circumstances, including when beneficiaries cannot agree on the appropriateness of settlement or allocation. The court should not approve a settlement that excludes or denies benefits to a beneficiary without a good-faith effort to obtain that person’s fully informed, knowing consent. Court approval is not automatic merely because some family members prefer settlement.
Practical steps for counsel
Counsel should confirm in writing who each client is and who is only a use plaintiff; promptly communicate the offer and explain the risks of accepting, rejecting, or proceeding to trial; give each client a fair opportunity to obtain independent advice; screen for conflicts before advising on a group decision; and avoid disclosing one client’s confidential information to another without authorization. If beneficiaries cannot agree, counsel can explore mediation, separate representation, a court-approved settlement, or continued litigation. Counsel should not promise settlement on behalf of a beneficiary who has not authorized it, use a majority vote to override a client, or distribute disputed proceeds before the allocation is resolved. If joint representation becomes materially limited or directly adverse, counsel must assess whether continued representation is permissible and take appropriate steps to protect each client, including withdrawal when required.
Related Maryland Cases and Authorities
Md. Code, Courts & Judicial Proceedings § 3-904(c), (f); Maryland Rules 19-301.2(a), 19-301.4, 19-301.7, 19-301.8(g), and 19-301.15(e); Walker v. Essex, 318 Md. 516 (1990); Ace American Insurance Co. v. Williams, 418 Md. 400 (2011).