Separate trials or bifurcation of a trial keeps a lawsuit intact, but allows the judge or jury to hear and determine one or more issues without trying all of the issues at the same time. This is often done to avoid unnecessarily prejudicing or inflaming the jury with evidence related to one issue that is not related to another issue. For example, courts sometimes order separate trials or bifurcation of a trial when a party is seeking punitive or exemplary damages, and the court does not want evidence of the person’s net worth or the entity’s valuation or revenue—which are relevant to punitive damages—to influence the jury’s decision on whether the person or entity is liable for the breach of contract, negligence, or other claim. In such a bifurcated trial, the jury does not hear evidence of the net worth, valuation, or revenue unless it first finds the defendant liable on the underlying claim.

In Florida, the concept of separate trials or bifurcation is addressed under Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 1.270 allows for separate trials when issues in a case are complex or there is a risk of prejudice or confusion to the jury. Bifurcation can be used to separate issues such as liability and damages, or to isolate the determination of punitive damages from the underlying liability issues. The decision to bifurcate a trial is at the discretion of the court and is typically granted to promote convenience, avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy. For instance, in cases where punitive damages are sought, the court may order a bifurcated trial to prevent the jury from being influenced by the defendant's financial status when determining liability. The jury would only consider the defendant's net worth or financial information if they first find the defendant liable for the underlying claim.