Zero Damages Constitutes Prima Facie Evidence That Offer of Settlement was Reasonable
Post 4954

Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gVe4j9mE, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gKreAbvn and at https://lnkd.in/g4P8Bs58 and https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4950 posts.

Wild Chang and Kenneth Lo appealed from a post judgment order denying their motion to strike or tax costs. The trial court awarded costs to defendants Fire Insurance Exchange and Stacy Chern (collectively, insurance defendants) after the trial court granted their motion for terminating sanctions and entered judgment in their favor.

In Wild Chang et al. v. Fire Insurance Exchange et al., B334217, California Court of Appeals (December 19, 2024) an offer of settlement rejected by plaintiffs requires plaintiffs to pay costs and expert witness fees after case dismissed with terminating sanctions.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs’ Insurance Claim and Consolidated Actions

An insurance claim plaintiffs submitted for losses caused by a fire in their home in 2014. In 2016, Fire Insurance Exchange offered $19,925.91 in structural repairs, which plaintiffs rejected. In 2017, plaintiffs Chang and Lo sued Farmers Insurance Company, Inc. (Farmers), Fire Insurance Exchange, Stacy Chern Insurance Agency, and Chern.

In May 2019, the insurance defendants made settlement offers of $14,242.56 each to Chang and Lo pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998. The offers each stated: “This offer expires the earlier of 30 days from the date hereof, or at the commencement of trial.”

In January 2021, plaintiffs Chang, Lo, and Chang Jr. sued Farmers, Fire Insurance Exchange, Chern, and defendants’ counsel, Woolls Peer in a second action. The lawsuits were consolidated and the operative third amended complaint deemed filed in July 2021. Farmers demurred to the third amended complaint on numerous grounds, which the trial court sustained, and the California Court of Appeals affirmed on appeal. (Chang v. Farmers Insurance Company, Inc. (June 16, 2023, B321411)

As the matter neared trial, the trial court issued several discovery orders with which Chang and Lo did not comply. In November 2022, the trial court granted a motion for terminating sanctions filed by the insurance defendants (the only remaining defendants) and entered judgment against Chang and Lo on the remaining causes of action (for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of contract, unfair business practices against Fire Insurance Exchange, and professional negligence against Chern).

The Trial Court’s Award of Costs to the Insurance Defendants

Plaintiffs moved to strike or tax costs on multiple grounds, including that the expert witness fees were not recoverable because the matter was never tried, no invoices were attached, and expert witness fees are generally not recoverable as costs.

The trial court entered an order granting $14,849.75 in costs to the insurance defendants.

DISCUSSION

Section 998 allows for recovery of expert witness costs in certain circumstances when an offer of settlement is not accepted and there is a judgment less than the amount of the offer.

The Costs Award Was Not Erroneous or an Abuse of Discretion – Expert Witness Fees as Costs

The statutory basis for the trial court’s award of expert witness fees was section 998. Once the offeror shows the section 998 offer is valid, the burden shifts to the offeree to show the offer was not made in good faith. An offer is made in good faith if it is realistically reasonable under the circumstances of the particular case – that is, if the offer carries with it some reasonable prospect of acceptance.

Plaintiffs made no argument that the section 998 offers they received were invalid. The insurance defendants obtained a judgment in their favor on all the remaining causes of action brought by Chang and Lo.

An award of zero damages generally constitutes prima facie evidence showing the offer was reasonable and the offeror is eligible for costs as specified in section 998. Plaintiffs do not challenge the reasonableness of the expert witness fees that the insurance defendants sought, or that such fees were all incurred after the expiration of the section 998 offers.

Rather than addressing whether the expert fees were proper under section 998, plaintiffs instead raised a number of other arguments.

Plaintiffs had the burden to establish the insurance defendants’ offer was invalid or not in good faith. Chang and Lo did not make any such showing. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals concluded the criteria for an award of post offer expert witness costs under section 998 were satisfied.

The post judgment order awarding costs was affirmed. Fire Insurance Exchange and Chern are entitled to recover their costs on appeal.

ZALMA OPINION

California’s Section 998 is a tool available to defendants to encourage settlement. The insurers made a viable offer of settlement which the Plaintiffs refused. After the case was dismissed by the court the Defendants were entitled to their costs including expert witness fees incurred after the offer was rejected. To appeal this issue is a clear act of desperation and is contumacious conduct. I doubt, without a writ, that Farmers will be paid the costs ordered.

(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.

Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe

Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg

Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk