Tex. R. Evid. 408

Compromise Offers and Negotiations

sha256 389a9a14e5bcdb218e0a540aaa7ab480… · retrieved 7/15/2026, 8:29:34 PM · Supreme Court of Texas official rules PDF — txcourts.gov, verbatim · verified 8/5/2026 by TXEV-1 July reconcile (artifact-proven, dual-sourced)

Rule 408. Compromise Offers and Negotiations
(a) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of the following is not admissible either to prove or disprove
the validity or amount of a disputed claim:
(1) furnishing, promising, or offering—or accepting, promising to accept, or offering
to accept—a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise
the claim; and
(2) conduct or statements made during compromise negotiations about the claim.
(b) Permissible Uses. The court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as proving
a party’s or witness’s bias, prejudice, or interest, negating a contention of undue delay, or
proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.
Comment to 2015 Restyling: Rule 408 previously provided that evidence was not excluded if
offered for a purpose not explicitly prohibited by the Rule. To improve the language of the Rule,
it now provides that the court may admit evidence if offered for a permissible purpose. There is no
intent to change the process for admitting evidence covered by the Rule. It remains the case that if
offered for an impermissible purpose, it must be excluded, and if offered for a purpose not barred
by the Rule, its admissibility remains governed by the general principles of Rules 402, 403, 801,
etc.
The reference to “liability” has been deleted on the ground that the deletion makes the Rule flow
better and easier to read, and because “liability” is covered by the broader term “validity.” Courts
have not made substantive decisions on the basis of any distinction between validity and liability.
No change in current practice or in the coverage of the Rule is intended.
15
Finally, the sentence of the Rule referring to evidence “otherwise discoverable” has been deleted
as superfluous. The intent of the sentence was to prevent a party from trying to immunize
admissible information, such as a pre-existing document, through the pretense of disclosing it
during compromise negotiations. But even without the sentence, the Rule cannot be read to protect
pre-existing information simply because it was presented to the adversary in compromise
negotiations.

Verbatim from the official publication; the only normalization is removal of the publisher's page headers. Verify against the official source for filing-critical use — court publications change without notice.