This subsection shall not apply to co-obligors who have expressly agreed in writing to an apportionment of liability for losses or claims among themselves.
The petition shall indicate the settling parties and, except for a settlement that includes a confidentiality agreement regarding the case or the terms of the settlement, the basis, terms, and settlement amount.
The notice, petition, and proposed order shall be served as provided by rules of court or by certified mail, return receipt requested. Proof of service shall be filed with the court. Within twenty-five days of the mailing of the notice, petition, and proposed order, a nonsettling alleged joint tortfeasor or co-obligor may file an objection to contest the good faith of the settlement. If none of the nonsettling alleged joint tortfeasors or co-obligors files an objection within the twenty-five days, the court may approve the settlement without a hearing. An objection by a nonsettling alleged joint tortfeasor or co-obligor shall be served upon all parties. A nonsettling alleged joint tortfeasor or co-obligor asserting a lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that issue.
Where a confidentiality agreement has been entered into regarding the claim or settlement terms, the court shall hear the matter in a manner consistent with preventing public disclosure of the agreement while providing other joint tortfeasors and co-obligors sufficient information to object to a proposed settlement.
HRS § 663-15.5
Law Journals and Reviews
Keeping the (Good) Faith: Hawai`i's Good Faith Settlement After HRS Section 15.5 and Troyer v. Adams. 26 UH L. Rev. 275.
Magistrate judge properly determined that defendant did not meet its burden of disproving good faith regarding settlement between plaintiff and other defendants. 293 F. Supp. 2d 1144. Discussed, where the court held that the proportionate share rule of federal admiralty law governed the settlement between plaintiff and the settling defendant. 526 F. Supp. 2d 1135. This section adequately protects a non-settling joint tortfeasor's right to procedural due process; subsections (b) and (c) afford a non-settling joint tortfeasor notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding the determination whether a settlement has been given in good faith and, consequently, bars cross-claims for contribution against the settling joint tortfeasor. 102 H. 399, 77 P.3d 83. Whether a settlement was given in "good faith" for purposes of this section is a matter left to the discretion of the trial court in light of all the relevant circumstances extant at the time of settlement.102 Haw. 399,77 P.3d 83. Legislature intended only parties, not merely non-settling alleged joint tortfeasors, to have the right to appeal a court determination on the issue of good faith; where, for purposes of appeal, appellant was required to intervene as a party, pursuant to HRCP rule 24 and failed to do so, and was thus not made a party to the case, appellant lacked standing to appeal. 112 H. 176, 145 P.3d 719. A settlement, wherein a party seeks to accomplish indirectly that which it is expressly barred by applicable law from accomplishing directly, is not in good faith. 113 H. 406,153 P.3d 1091.