Davidson v. Beco Corp. , 114 Idaho 107 ( 1987 )

SHEPARD, Chief Justice,

concurring specially.

I concur with the majority in its holding that the trial court correctly admitted the offer of settlement letter. However, I do not agree with the majority’s analysis of the possibility of unfair prejudice resulting from the admission of such séttlement offer since the evidence (the letter) had direct relevance to the issue before the court.

This case differs from the usual circumstances in which a settlement offer is introduced to infer liability of a defendant only because he offered to settle. Here, BECO asserted as a defense that the claim had been settled. BECO’s president testified that the claim had been settled and by what means. The offer of settlement letter impeached that testimony. Here the trial court permitted the contents of the letter as evidence that no settlement had been reached between the parties. Thus, settlement was the issue, the letter was relevant to that issue, and was correctly admitted.