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 North Carolina, the concept of separate trials or bifurcation is addressed under Rule 42(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. This rule grants judges the discretion to order a separate trial for any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, or third-party claim, or for any separate issue when it would be in the interests of convenience or would avoid prejudice, or when separate trials would be conducive to expedition and economy. Bifurcation is often used in cases where a party is seeking punitive damages, as it allows the court to prevent evidence of a defendant's financial status from prejudicing the jury's decision on liability. If the court orders bifurcation, the trial is split into two phases: the first phase to determine liability and compensatory damages, and the second phase to consider punitive damages and the defendant's financial condition, but only if the defendant is found liable in the first phase.