California Evidence Code Section 1152 keeps settlement offers and the discussions around them from being used in court to prove you were at fault. If you offer money, services, or any other form of compromise to resolve a disputed claim, that offer and the statements made during the negotiation cannot be admitted at trial to show liability for the loss. The rule exists so people will negotiate openly without worrying that every word becomes an admission.
What the Statute Shields
The protection is broad. It covers offers to pay money, promises to provide services, and payments actually made to resolve a claim. It also covers “any conduct or statements made in negotiation thereof,” so the back-and-forth of the discussion is shielded, not only the final number.1California Legislative Information. California Evidence Code Section 1152
It applies whether the settlement went through or not. If you offered $50,000 to resolve a personal injury claim and the other side turned it down, neither the amount nor the fact of the offer is admissible to prove you were at fault. The same holds if the offer was accepted and a dispute later arises in separate litigation about the same incident.
An offer to compromise does not have to be a formal written proposal. It can be an informal conversation where someone floats a number, a demand letter proposing a specific sum, or a suggestion to split the difference. What matters is whether the communication was made in the context of trying to resolve a disputed claim. A casual remark at the scene of an accident, made before any claim exists, likely falls outside the statute’s protection.
Humanitarian Payments
EC 1152 separately protects payments made out of compassion rather than as part of a negotiation. If you pay for an injured person’s ambulance ride or emergency room visit right after an accident, that payment is inadmissible to prove you caused the injury. The statute treats humanitarian motives as an independent basis for exclusion, distinct from the compromise motive.1California Legislative Information. California Evidence Code Section 1152 The protection applies whether or not a formal claim has been filed.
What EC 1152 Does Not Do
The statute is an evidentiary exclusion, not a privilege. That distinction matters. A privilege blocks both the admissibility of evidence at trial and its discovery during litigation. EC 1152 only does the first part. Documents and facts relevant to your case do not become immune from discovery just because someone mentioned them during settlement talks.
If you hand over an internal safety report during negotiations, the opposing party can still obtain that report through normal discovery channels. The report existed before the negotiation and was not created for it. California Evidence Code 1120 states the same principle for mediation: evidence that would be admissible or discoverable outside of a mediation does not become protected simply because it was introduced during one.2Judicial Council of California. California Evidence Code – Section 1120
The statute also limits the purpose for which evidence is excluded. It bars settlement evidence offered “to prove liability for the loss or damage or any part of it.”1California Legislative Information. California Evidence Code Section 1152 Offered for a different purpose, the same evidence may come in.
When Settlement Evidence Can Still Be Used
Several situations fall outside the shield.
Showing a Witness Has a Stake in the Outcome
When a settling party’s witness testifies against a non-settling defendant, the existence of a settlement, particularly a sliding-scale arrangement tying the settling defendant’s payout to the trial result, can be disclosed to the jury. The jury needs to know a witness may have a financial interest in the verdict. California Civil Jury Instruction 222 allows the settlement agreement to be shown for that purpose, so the jury can weigh credibility.
Insurance Bad Faith Claims
In a lawsuit alleging that an insurer breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing, or violated the unfair claims settlement practices listed in Insurance Code 790.03(h), evidence of settlement offers is admissible to show how the insurer handled the claim.3California Legislative Information. California Insurance Code Section 790.03 Those unfair practices include offering substantially less than a claim is worth to pressure a policyholder into accepting, failing to investigate promptly, and refusing to affirm or deny coverage within a reasonable time.
EC 1152(b) adds a fairness rule here: if one side’s settlement offer is admitted in a bad faith case, either party can demand that all other offers and counteroffers related to the same loss come in too. That prevents cherry-picking a single lowball offer while hiding later, more reasonable proposals.1California Legislative Information. California Evidence Code Section 1152
Partial Payment and Debt Revival
EC 1152 does not exclude two specific categories of evidence. First, if someone partially satisfies a claim without disputing its validity, that partial payment is admissible to prove the claim was valid. Second, a debtor’s payment or promise to pay a preexisting debt is admissible to show the creation of a new obligation or the revival of an old one.1California Legislative Information. California Evidence Code Section 1152 Neither situation involves the kind of genuine dispute resolution the statute is designed to protect.
New Trial Motions and Appeals
Outside of insurance bad faith actions, settlement offers cannot be introduced in motions for a new trial, in proceedings to increase or reduce a jury’s damages award, or on appeal. EC 1152(b) states this directly and keeps parties from using rejected settlement figures to argue a verdict was too high or too low.1California Legislative Information. California Evidence Code Section 1152
Criminal Cases Are Not Covered
EC 1152 almost certainly does not apply in criminal proceedings. The statute’s text refers to proving “liability for the loss or damage,” which is civil terminology. In an appellate decision, a defendant argued that his offer to pay medical expenses should have been excluded under EC 1152 in his criminal trial. The court rejected the argument, noting that the statute contains no reference to criminal liability and that no case law supports extending it to criminal cases.
If an incident could lead to both a civil lawsuit and criminal charges, anything you say while trying to settle with the injured party could be used against you in a criminal prosecution. EC 1152 will not save you. Get a lawyer’s advice before engaging in settlement discussions in that situation.
Mediation Offers a Stronger Shield
Parties who negotiate through mediation get substantially stronger protection under California Evidence Code 1119. Where EC 1152 only blocks admissibility at trial, EC 1119 blocks both admissibility and discovery. Nothing said during mediation, no admission made, and no document prepared for mediation can be compelled into disclosure in any civil proceeding, arbitration, or administrative hearing.4California Legislative Information. California Evidence Code Section 1119
Under EC 1152, the other side can still discover what you said during settlement talks and potentially use it for a purpose other than proving liability. Under EC 1119, they cannot compel disclosure of mediation communications at all. That is one reason attorneys often prefer structured mediation over informal negotiations when sensitive admissions might come up. The same limit on pre-existing evidence applies in both contexts: documents that were discoverable before the negotiation stay discoverable.2Judicial Council of California. California Evidence Code – Section 1120
If Your Case Is in Federal Court
Federal Rule of Evidence 408 governs settlement evidence in federal court, not EC 1152. The two share the same core principle but differ in ways that matter.
FRE 408 explicitly prohibits using settlement statements “to impeach by a prior inconsistent statement or a contradiction.”5Legal Information Institute (LII). Federal Rule of Evidence 408 – Compromise Offers and Negotiations EC 1152 says nothing about impeachment. Its text bars evidence offered to “prove liability,” which is narrower. Whether California courts would permit settlement statements for impeachment is a question the statute leaves open.
FRE 408 also carves out an exception for criminal cases involving government claims. Statements made during negotiations over a claim brought by a government agency exercising its regulatory or enforcement authority are admissible in a related criminal prosecution.5Legal Information Institute (LII). Federal Rule of Evidence 408 – Compromise Offers and Negotiations EC 1152 has no equivalent provision, though California courts reach a similar practical result by holding the statute simply does not apply in criminal cases.