Must mediation settlements be in writing to be enforceable? Reese v. Tingey Explained

In Reese v. Tingey, the Utah Supreme Court established critical precedent regarding mediation confidentiality and the enforceability of settlement agreements reached during mediation proceedings.

Background and Facts

Murlyn Craig Reese sustained significant injuries in a workplace accident and later sued Tingey Construction for negligence. During court-ordered mediation, Reese claimed he reached an oral settlement agreement with LWP Claims Solutions, which was acting as an agent for Reese’s workers’ compensation insurer. When LWP refused to sign the written memorandum of understanding that incorporated the alleged oral agreement, Reese sought to enforce the settlement and requested depositions of LWP’s attorney regarding the mediation communications.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed two fundamental questions: (1) whether mediation communications regarding alleged oral agreements are protected by confidentiality laws, and (2) whether Utah law requires mediation agreements to be reduced to writing for court enforcement.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s discovery order, holding that Utah Code section 78-31b-8 protects all mediation communications from disclosure. The court emphasized that allowing courts to distinguish between “confidential” and “nonconfidential” portions of mediation would undermine the process’s effectiveness. Furthermore, the court ruled that only written mediation agreements signed by all parties can be enforced by courts under Utah Code section 78-31b-7(3)(a). The court reasoned that enforcing oral agreements would require disclosure of confidential mediation communications, violating statutory protections.

Practice Implications

This decision provides crucial guidance for Utah practitioners handling mediated disputes. All settlement agreements reached during mediation must be reduced to writing and signed by all parties to be enforceable. The court’s bright-line rule prevents courts from inquiring into confidential mediation communications while encouraging comprehensive written agreements. The decision also reinforces that mediation confidentiality protections are broad and cannot be circumvented by characterizing some communications as “nonconfidential.”