20 Cal. App. 5th 155
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Two wrongful-death actions arose from a house fire that killed Virginia Gonzalez (49) and Maverick Crowder (3); heirs of both decedents sued the homeowners (the Lews).
- Plaintiffs (heirs of both decedents) made a single, joint, unallocated Code Civ. Proc. § 998 offer to settle both claims for $1.5 million; the Lews refused and made a separate joint $1 million offer which plaintiffs rejected.
- At trial plaintiffs prevailed: Virginia’s heirs recovered ≈ $2.254 million; Maverick’s heirs recovered ≈ $357,100; overall plaintiffs recovered more than $2.6 million; jury found defendants 85% at fault.
- Plaintiffs sought costs under § 998, including expert witness fees and post-offer interest; the trial court awarded those costs and denied the Lews’ motion to tax costs as to the § 998-based items.
- The Lews appealed, arguing the joint unallocated § 998 offer was invalid because it prevented them from evaluating each wrongful-death claim independently, so plaintiffs were not entitled to § 998 cost-shifting.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the joint offer was valid under § 998 on these facts because it was reasonable to compare the unallocated offer to the aggregate verdict and one set of heirs (Virginia’s) plainly recovered more than the offer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of a joint, unallocated § 998 offer made by multiple plaintiffs to one defendant | Joint global offers are permissible; plaintiffs negotiated internally and may make a single offer to end litigation | Joint unallocated offers are invalid because they prevent the offeree from evaluating each claimant separately and thus should not trigger § 998 | Affirmed: A joint unallocated offer by multiple plaintiffs can be valid; where the aggregate verdict clearly exceeds the joint offer (or one plaintiff’s recovery clearly exceeds it), § 998 applies |
| Entitlement to § 998 augmented costs (expert fees) and post-offer interest | Because § 998 offer was valid and plaintiffs obtained a less favorable result by refusing it, plaintiffs are entitled to expert fees and interest as permitted under § 998 and Civ. Code § 3291 | If the offer was invalid, plaintiffs cannot recover § 998-enhanced costs or post-offer interest | Affirmed: Given the valid § 998 offer and more favorable trial recovery, augmented costs and interest awards were proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. Brownco Construction Co., 56 Cal.4th 1014 (Cal. 2013) (§ 998 requirements and purpose; written offer and statutory content needed for augmented costs)
- Meissner v. Paulson, 212 Cal.App.3d 785 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) (unallocated offers to multiple plaintiffs invalid where acceptance requires all plaintiffs’ concurrence)
- Hurlbut v. Sonora Community Hospital, 207 Cal.App.3d 388 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) (invalidated joint plaintiff offer where present-value/valuation issues and joint nature precluded determining whether verdict was more favorable)
- Fortman v. Hemco, Inc., 211 Cal.App.3d 241 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) (rejected a per se rule against joint offers by plaintiffs; where verdict plainly exceeds joint offer, § 998 can apply)
- Persson v. Smart Inventions, Inc., 125 Cal.App.4th 1141 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (joint offers by multiple defendants can be valid when joint and several liability exists; criticized categorical invalidation of joint offers)
- McDaniel v. Asuncion, 214 Cal.App.4th 1201 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (unallocated joint offers to heirs in a single wrongful-death action can be valid due to the indivisible nature of the wrongful-death recovery)