SCRE 408

Evidence of (1) furnishing or offering or promising to furnish, or (2) accepting or offering or promising

to accept, a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise a claim which was

disputed as to either validity or amount, is not admissible to prove liability for or invalidity of the claim

or its amount. Evidence of conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations is likewise not

admissible. This rule does not require the exclusion of any evidence otherwise discoverable merely

because it is presented in the course of compromise negotiations. This rule also does not require

exclusion when the evidence is offered for another purpose, such as proving bias or prejudice of a

witness, negativing a contention of undue delay, or proving an effort to obstruct a criminal

investigation or prosecution.

Note:

This rule is identical to the federal rule. It is generally the rule in South Carolina that

evidence relating to settlements is not admissible to prove liability. Hunter v. Hyder,

236 S.C. 378, 114 S.E.2d 493 (1960); see also Woodward v. Southern Railway, 88 S.C.

453, 70 S.E. 1060 (1911) (evidence of disclosures made by either party to the other,

directly or indirectly, in negotiations for a compromise is not admissible). Evidence of

an offer to compromise may be admissible for some other purpose. Meehan v.

Commercial Casualty Ins. Co., 166 S.C. 496, 165 S.E. 194 (1932) (evidence of offers of

compromise made by alleged agent of a party admissible for purpose of proving

agency).