Below is a brief reminder of the four main things you should remember in the Pierringer Agreements: (1) The Pierringer Agreements, also known as “proportionate share contracts” or “cash orders,” are called pierringer v. Hoger, 124 NW 2d 106 (Wis SC 1963). The alliance raises two issues that should be taken into consideration by the parties involved in the Pierringer agreements: the use of the Pierringer agreements in disputes over legacy charges has been commented on only to a limited extent. However, given that several defendants are often involved in cases of charges inherited from the past, the use of a Pierringer agreement is worth considering. For a particular defendant, a Pierringer agreement can allow for a quick resolution to the complaint and avoid the typical obstacles to finding a comprehensive solution. For example, if it appears that there is some liability for the facts, a Pierringer agreement can resolve your client`s liability risk at an early stage of the dispute, thus avoiding the uncertainty and cost of the procedure. Nav Canada did not retaliate against the dismissal of the cross-claims, but its position depended on the court approving the Pierringer agreement on fair terms for NAV Canada, including maintaining its rights of investigation with respect to the defendants. NAV Canada`s position is common to most unsecut defendants who face a perceived procedural bias when left as the only remaining defendants in the litigation. As the Tribunal states in the Allianz case, the reality is that after the approval of the Pierringer agreement, the non-resigned defendant will now be faced with the defence of the charges for which he is 100% responsible, although on the basis of several responsibilities, and it may be necessary to prove the fault of the defendant, even if they are not parties. The Court of Justice must aim to avoid, in such circumstances, an infringement of the non-overlapping defendant. In summary, a pierringer agreement can be a useful tool in a trial lawyer`s toolbox to get a partial solution to a lawsuit. However, it should be ensured that it is the right tool for the job.
Similarly, in amello v. Bluewave Energy Limited Partnership, the Amellos were victims of an oil spill in the basement of their home. Oil seeped into his home from a tank of the defendant, Bluewave Energy Limited Partnership (“Bluewave”). The oil that seeped into the cellar was transported by another defendant, Daniel Charles Transport Ltd. The defendants invoked counter-claims in the action. A pierringer contract was concluded between the applicant and Daniel Charles Transport Ltd. Subsequently, Daniel Charles Transport Ltd. brought an application for dismissal of Bluewave`s cross-action on the basis of the Pierringer Agreement. The court, however, refused to dismiss the cross-action, as it referred to Daniel Charles Transport Ltd. .