Executive Summary
- Settlement reached between Skaggs family and L.A. Angels during third day of jury deliberations.
- Agreement concludes a 31-day trial regarding the team’s liability in the pitcher’s 2019 fentanyl death.
- Jury inquiries regarding economic and punitive damages preceded the settlement announcement.
- Former employee Eric Kay is serving a 22-year prison sentence for providing the lethal drugs.
- Terms of the settlement remain confidential.
The family of deceased pitcher Tyler Skaggs and the Los Angeles Angels reached a settlement agreement on Friday, concluding a contentious wrongful death lawsuit just as jurors entered their third day of deliberations. The resolution ends a four-year legal battle regarding the franchise’s liability in the 2019 overdose death of the 27-year-old pitcher.
The agreement was announced after a 31-day trial in Santa Ana, California. While the specific financial terms were not disclosed, the settlement precludes the reading of a jury verdict. The plaintiffs, including Skaggs’ widow Carli and his parents, had sought damages arguing the team was negligent in its supervision of former communications director Eric Kay. Kay is currently serving a 22-year federal prison sentence for providing the fentanyl-laced oxycodone that caused Skaggs’ death.
According to reports from the courthouse, the timing of the settlement coincided with signals that the jury may have been leaning toward a verdict against the team. On Wednesday, jurors requested a read-back of testimony regarding Skaggs’ potential future earnings, which experts estimated between $30 million and $102 million. Additionally, the jury inquired about their authority to award punitive damages, a question that legal observers suggest indicated a finding of liability against the Angels.
Attorneys for the Skaggs family argued during the trial that the Angels organization ignored red flags regarding Kay’s drug use and distribution within the clubhouse. In closing arguments, plaintiff attorney Daniel Dutko suggested the team bore 70 to 90 percent of the responsibility. Defense attorneys for the Angels countered by portraying Skaggs as an addict who was responsible for his own decisions, arguing that team management was unaware of the drug activity.
Legal Ramifications and Risk Management
The decision to settle during active deliberations reflects a strategic calculation to mitigate the uncertainty of a jury verdict. By reaching an agreement before the verdict form was finalized, both parties eliminated the risk of an “all-or-nothing” outcome. For the defendants, this avoided the possibility of a massive punitive damage award and the negative publicity of a liability finding. For the plaintiffs, it secured a guaranteed compensation without the prospect of years of appellate litigation. This settlement closes the civil chapter of the case, distinct from the criminal proceedings that previously established the direct culpability of the former team employee.
