Perez v. Torres
141 Cal. Rptr. 3d 758
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Perez was injured in an automobile collision with a vehicle driven by Torres; the jury awarded Perez $77,986 in compensatory and $1,400 in punitive damages.
- Torres made a section 998 offer to settle for $100,000.49; Perez did not accept.
- Torres sought costs under section 998; the trial court taxed costs after finding the 998 offer invalid.
- Torres conceded the offer lacked the statutorily required acceptance provision.
- The issue is whether the §998 offer is valid given the missing acceptance provision and, if not, the impact on costs.
- The court adopts a bright-line rule that a §998 offer is invalid if it omits a statutorily required acceptance provision, even when the offer is made to a represented party.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Torres's §998 offer valid without the acceptance provision? | Perez contends the omission invalidates the offer. | Torres argues omission is harmless and should not invalidate the offer. | Offer invalid; bright-line rule; must include acceptance provision. |
| Does Puerta control the outcome, given representation status? | Puerta supports validity despite omission; argues strict compliance is not always necessary. | Puerta distinguishes but the plain-language rule requires acceptance provision regardless of representation. | Puerta distinguished; plain-language rule governs; invalid without acceptance provision. |
| Should §475 or harmless-error analysis apply to the invalid §998 offer? | §475 does not apply to require non-prejudicial error; bright-line invalidity serves the statute's purpose. |
Key Cases Cited
- Puerta v. Torres, 195 Cal.App.4th 1267 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (invalidates §998 offer lacking acceptance provision; plain-language rule governs)
- Poster v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist., 52 Cal.3d 266 (Cal. 1990) (counteroffer does not automatically revoke §998 offer; bright-line rule favored)
- Berg v. Darden, 120 Cal.App.4th 721 (Cal. App. 2004) (interpretation of §998 terms; settlement incentives)
- Culbertson v. R. D. Werner Co., Inc., 190 Cal.App.3d 704 (Cal. App. 1987) (Legislative purpose of §998 to encourage settlement)
- Elrod v. Oregon Cummins Diesel, Inc., 195 Cal.App.3d 692 (Cal. App. 1987) (early §998 interpretation considerations)
- Taing v. Johnson Scaffolding Co., 9 Cal.App.4th 579 (Cal. App. 1992) (§998 and settlement policy considerations)
- Westamerica Bank v. MBG Industries, Inc., 158 Cal.App.4th 109 (Cal. App. 2007) (cost-shifting under §998; computation of costs)
- Puerta v. Torres, 195 Cal.App.4th 1267 (Cal. App. 2011) (reaffirmed requirement of acceptance provision in §998)