Sanctions Reversed

Allen Schreiber • March 15, 2021
A hand-shake agreement

There are many compelling reasons why mediation is attractive. One is the confidentiality of the process and another is the parties’ right to maintain control of whether they settle their case or not.


In June 2020, I wrote about sanctions that Judge Karen Hall had awarded against an insurance company in a court-ordered mediation. In particular, the Court held that the defendant carrier had failed to comply with her mediation order and imposed sanctions in an amount over $600,000. Recently, the Alabama Supreme Court reversed the criminal sanctions (see Allstate v. Harbin).


The opinion confirms that conversations during mediation remain confidential. It also confirms that a party, although ordered to mediation, still maintains their right to determine whether they will resolve the conflict by way of settlement or proceed to trial. The Court stated:

“the phrase ‘full authority to settle' does not mean that the individual must be willing to settle. Nor is it 'a requirement that [the individual] must come to court willing to settle on someone else's terms. It simply means that the individuals at the settlement conference must be authorized by the parties both to explore fully settlement options and to agree at that time to any settlement terms acceptable to the parties."

Although significant costs stood, the court reversed the criminal sanctions that were imposed.


Confidentiality and control: two great reasons why the mediation process works. This case confirms why bringing the person with “authority to settle” is essential to the process.

Schedule your next ADR session via our convenient online calendar, or call Carol Waldrop at 855-754-8807.