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 Michigan, the concept of separate trials or bifurcation is addressed under Michigan Court Rules (MCR). Specifically, MCR 2.513 allows for the separation of issues for trial when it will promote convenience or avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy. Bifurcation can be requested by a party or determined by the court itself. In cases where punitive damages are sought, Michigan courts may order a bifurcated trial to prevent the jury from being prejudiced by evidence of a defendant's wealth before determining liability. The first phase of such a trial would focus on the defendant's liability, and only if liability is established would the trial proceed to the second phase, where the jury would consider evidence relevant to the determination of punitive damages, such as the defendant's net worth.