214 Cal. App. 4th 1201
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Steven Carl McDaniel was killed in a multi-vehicle accident, leaving wife and daughter as appellants in a wrongful death action.
- Respondent Loyd Richard Asuncion served a single joint section 998 offer of $100,000 to appellants before trial; offer not accepted.
- At trial, appellants obtained a $3.3 million verdict against another defendant but a defense verdict against Asuncion.
- Respondent, as prevailing party, sought over $41,000 in expert witness fees; trial court awarded none because appellants did not obtain a more favorable result than the offer.
- Appellants challenged the validity of a joint section 998 offer to multiple plaintiffs in a wrongful death action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of joint 998 offer to multiple plaintiffs | McDaniels argue a single joint offer to multiple plaintiffs is invalid. | Asuncion argues a joint offer is valid in wrongful death actions. | Joint offer valid; single lump-sum verdict allows comparison. |
| Unity of interest in wrongful death for offer validity | Multiple heirs have separate damages; no unity to justify joint offer. | Wrongful death awards are a single lump sum with unity of action. | Unity of interest in wrongful death supports a single joint offer. |
| Apportionment requirement for offers to multiple plaintiffs | Meissner/apportionment rules require separate offers to each plaintiff. | Wrongful death framework negates apportionment; court will apportion after verdict. | Meissner/apportionment rule does not apply; joint offer valid because wrongful death yields a single verdict and lump sum. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc., 28 Cal.App.4th 613 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (rejects voiding joint offers when a unitary wrongful death verdict can be compared)
- Stallman v. Bell, 235 Cal.App.3d 740 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (upheld joint offer in wrongful death action despite multiple plaintiffs)
- Gilman v. Beverly California Corp., 231 Cal.App.3d 121 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (joint offer rejected when multiple plaintiffs’ distinct losses could not be separately evaluated)
- Meissner v. Paulson, 212 Cal.App.3d 785 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) (apportionment required for joint offers in ordinary cases; cautions uncertainty)
- Randles v. Lowry, 4 Cal.App.3d 68 (Cal. Ct. App. 1970) (supports need for apportionment in some joint offers)
- Menees v. Andrews, 122 Cal.App.4th 1540 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (context on joint offers and effects on costs may depend on action type)
- San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior Court, 146 Cal.App.4th 1545 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (describes allocation of damages among heirs and related recovery framework)
- Smith v. Premier Alliance Ins. Co., 41 Cal.App.4th 691 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (wrongful death damages and allocation principles among heirs)
- Peterson v. John Crane, Inc., 154 Cal.App.4th 498 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (discusses unity of action and apportionment in class-like scenarios)