Serico v. Rothberg, 189 A.3d 343

Lucia Serico sued Dr. Robert Rothberg for medical malpractice; the jury awarded $6,000,000 but the parties had a contemporaneous on-the-record high-low settlement limiting recovery to between $300,000 (low) and $1,000,000 (high).
Before trial Serico had served a Rule 4:58 offer of judgment for $750,000 ("inclusive of costs and prejudgment interest"); Rothberg rejected that offer.
During jury deliberations the parties placed a high-low agreement on the record, stating the plaintiff would receive the jury amount but "period" (no interest) and confirming the insurer's policy limit was $1,000,000.
The trial court denied Serico's post-judgment motion seeking Rule 4:58 litigation expenses (including attorney's fees) based on her earlier offer of judgment; the Appellate Division affirmed, construing the high-low as capping recovery.
The Supreme Court reviewed de novo whether the high-low agreement barred recovery of Rule 4:58 expenses arising from the previously expired offer of judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Serico may recover Rule 4:58 litigation expenses after entering a high-low agreement that capped recovery at $1,000,000	Rule 4:58 mandates allowance of post-offer litigation expenses when a qualifying offer is rejected; the high-low did not expressly preserve or waive those rights, so Serico should still recover under Rule 4:58	High-low agreements are contracts that limit the defendant's total obligation to the agreed "high"; absent an express reservation of Rule 4:58 rights on the record, the plaintiff cannot obtain more than the high	The high-low agreement was a settlement contract that, by its terms and context (including on-the-record statements and insurer confirmation), established $1,000,000 as the maximum recovery inclusive of fees and expenses; Rule 4:58 expenses are barred unless expressly preserved

Crudup v. Marrero, 57 N.J. 353 (discusses Rule 4:58 purpose to encourage settlements)
Benz v. Pires, 269 N.J. Super. 574 (App. Div. 1994) (treats high-low as settlement contract; prejudgment interest must be specified in agreement)
Malick v. Seaview Lincoln Mercury, 398 N.J. Super. 182 (App. Div. 2008) (considered Rule 4:58 consequences in context of a high-low where plaintiff expressly reserved Rule 4:58 rights)
Wiese v. Dedhia, 188 N.J. 587 (explains Rule 4:58 imposes financial consequences for rejecting favorable settlement offers)
Manalapan Realty v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366 (standard for de novo review of legal questions, including contract interpretation)