CRE 408

History

(Federal Rule Identical.) Source: Entire rule amended and effective September 27, 2007. ANNOTATION Law reviews. For article ‘‘ADR: Explana- tions, Examples and Effective Use’’, see 18 Colo. Law. 843 (1989). For article, ‘‘Admissi- bility of a Party’s Own Settlement Offer’’, see 21 Colo. Law. 1893 (1992). For article, ‘‘Un- locking Apology’s Potential in Resolving Dis- putes’’, see 51 Colo. Law. 20 (July 2022). This rule applies to every offer of settle- ment and makes such offers inadmissible to prove liability. Therefore, the rule does not impose a condition on an offer of settlement. Further, an offer may be admissible under this rule for purposes other than to prove liability. Dillen v. HealthOne, L.L.C., 108 P.3d 297 (Colo. App. 2004). Whether the statements contained in a let- ter plaintiff’s counsel had written were actu- ally made in the course of a ‘‘settlement ne- gotiation’’ or ‘‘compromise’’ is a question of fact, and since there was evidentiary support for the trial court’s finding that the letter was part of an effort to compromise the plaintiff’s claims, that finding is binding on appeal. H&H Distributors v. BBC Intern., 812 P.2d 659 (Colo. App. 1990). Even if the letter plaintiff’s counsel had written constituted an ‘‘admission of fact’’, plaintiff’s ‘‘admission’’ would be excludable under CRE 408 because it was made in a letter offering to settle the dispute. H&H Distributors v. BBC Intern., 812 P.2d 659 (Colo. App. 1990). A document entitled ‘‘Settlement Detail’’ was admissible because it was a status report for defendant’s use in the ordinary course of business, not for the purpose of discussing settlement with plaintiff. Scott Co. of California v. MK-Ferguson, 832 P.2d 1000 (Colo. App. 1991). Situations in which someone acknowledges that a certain claim is valid or is valid to a certain extent, or statements to the effect: ‘‘I think your claim is worth ‘X’ number of dollars,’’ are not offers within the meaning of CRE 408. Scott Co. of California v. MK- Ferguson, 832 P.2d 1000 (Colo. App. 1991). The threshold question, which is a ques- tion of fact for the trial court, is whether the conduct or statements were made in settle- ment negotiations, for if they were not, the rule is inapplicable. Scott Co. of California v. MK- Ferguson, 832 P.2d 1000 (Colo. App. 1991). This rule applies to statements made in regard to a settlement for a civil claim, not a criminal charge; therefore, statements made by a defendant to police concerning criminal charges are admissible at trial. People v. Butson, 2017 COA 50, 410 P.3d 744. Evidence supported trial court’s finding and was binding on appeal that the docu- ment was admissible because it was a status report prepared for defendants’ use in the ordi- nary course of business, not for the purpose of discussing settlement with plaintiff. Scott Co. of California v. MK-Ferguson, 832 P.2d 1000 (Colo. App. 1991). No error in admitting statements by plain- tiff that a representative of defendants stated that he felt plaintiff’s claims had merit in certain amount where court stated that situa- tions in which someone acknowledges that a certain claim is valid or is valid to a certain extent, or statements to the effect: ‘‘I think your claim is worth ‘X’ number of dollars,’’ are not offers within the meaning of this rule. Scott Co. of California v. MK-Ferguson, 832 P.2d 1000 (Colo. App. 1991).