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 Iowa, the concept of separate trials or bifurcation is recognized and can be applied in civil litigation. Bifurcation is a procedural tool that allows a court to divide a trial into two or more parts, enabling the judge or jury to consider separate issues independently. This is particularly useful when certain evidence might prejudice the jury regarding issues that should be decided independently. For instance, in cases where punitive damages are sought, Iowa courts may order a bifurcated trial to ensure that the jury first determines liability based on the facts of the case without being influenced by the defendant's financial status. Only if liability is established would the jury then consider evidence relevant to the determination of punitive damages, such as the defendant's net worth. The decision to bifurcate a trial is at the discretion of the court and is guided by considerations of fairness, efficiency, and judicial economy. Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.954 governs the separation of issues and the ordering of separate trials, providing the legal framework for such decisions.