Adams v. Ford Motor Co.
199 Cal. App. 4th 1475
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Adams sued Ford and other defendants for asbestos exposure from Ford-brakes; decedent Richard Adams died of mesothelioma.
- Ford served a section 998 settlement offer of $2,500 per plaintiff ($10,000 total) with a mutual waiver of costs.
- Adams rejected the offer; trial proceeded and Ford prevailed in December 2009.
- Post-trial, Ford sought $185,741.82 in costs, including $167,570 in expert fees; Adams moved to tax costs.
- Adams alleged the 998 offer was unreasonable/bad faith and that expert fees were not reasonably necessary.
- Trial court found the 998 offer reasonable and the expert fees reasonably necessary; denial of the motion to tax costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Ford's 998 offer reasonable and in good faith? | Adams argues the offer was token and not reasonably predictable of liability. | Ford contends the offer included a favorable cost waiver and reflected reasonable prediction under known facts. | Yes; offer reasonable and made in good faith. |
| Were Ford's expert witness fees reasonably necessary? | Fees were excessive and not reasonably necessary for trial preparation. | Fees were necessary and comparable to those in similar cases; trial court weighed testimony. | Yes; fees were reasonably necessary. |
| Can a prevailing defendant recover expert costs incurred before the offer under § 998(c)? | Only post-offer costs should be recoverable under § 998(c). | § 998(c) allows recovery of expert costs incurred before or after the offer; § 998(d) limits plaintiff recovery. | Yes; defendant may recover pre- and post-offer expert costs under § 998(c). |
Key Cases Cited
- Wear v. Calderon, 121 Cal.App.3d 818 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981) (good faith requirement for § 998 offers)
- Elrod v. Oregon Cummins Diesel, Inc., 195 Cal.App.3d 692 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987) (reasonableness of offer and likelihood of success at trial)
- Santantonio v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co., 25 Cal.App.4th 102 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (prima facie reasonableness when defense verdict obtained)
- Jones v. Dumrichob, 63 Cal.App.4th 1258 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (expert fees and prima facie proof via memorandum of costs)
- Regency Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 39 Cal.4th 507 (Cal. 2006) (pre/post-offer expert costs under § 998(c); discretion)
- Moore v. Moore, 67 Cal.App.3d 278 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977) (trial court best position to assess necessity of expert fees)
- Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn., 19 Cal.App.4th 761 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) (expert fees reasonable necessity; trial court fact-finder)