This mutual fear helps to bring the parties together and formally settle the issue. Since the agreement is more likely under the toll agreement, the parties enjoy the benefits of litigation (threat of a possible cash judgment against the defendant) without actually incurring litigation and incurring costs. If the parties agree to enter into a toll contract, the main provisions of the contract govern its scope, including the types of claims you could assert against the co-liability. In cases of product liability, you may be entitled to a contribution against the co-accused to ensure that your customer does not pay more than his proportionate share of liability, which is assessed in countries with joint and several liability. In this case, the defendant can benefit from the proceedings by being better informed of the claimant`s claims. Conversely, the applicant may benefit by introducing into the toll agreement provisions which may compel a defendant to submit documents which might otherwise not be available to the applicant, except in the discovery phase of a lawsuit. Counterclaim toll agreements (including counter-claims and third-party claims) can be a useful tool to prevent an overtly unfavourable position from being taken against a co-accused while awaiting a product liability case. A toll agreement is usually an out-of-court agreement between the parties, which provides for the limitation period for a specified period. Toll agreements are contractual in nature and must therefore be concluded on a case-by-case basis. In exchange for the applicant`s agreement to delay the filing of an appeal until the expiry of the toll agreement, the defendant agrees to waive the right to use this buffer period to calculate the end of the right in accordance with the limitation period. By suspending the limitation period, the parties have the necessary time to negotiate and settle the dispute. Here`s what you need to know.

The Claimant underwent surgery on 12 January 2012 and suffered a complication that a surgeon claims to have related to “problems” and “malfunction” with surgical devices. Id. at *1-*2. Despite the complication, the complainant was fired in good condition a few days later and, although she is apparently no worse for wear, she contacted a lawyer in September 2013 after seeing a TV commercial. Id. at *2. .