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
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Insurance Requires Fortuity to be an Insured Risk
Post 5485
Posted on September 8, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Industrial Park Center, LLC, doing business as Mainspring Capital Group v. Great Northern Insurance Company, a foreign insurer, No. CV-25-0330-CQ, Supreme Court of Arizona (September 1, 2026).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified the following question to this Court:
"Is damage to property a “fortuitous” loss when, based on the insured’s knowledge at the time the insurance policy issued, it was reasonably foreseeable that such damage was almost certain to occur if certain preventative measures were not taken?"
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Mainspring owned commercial property leased to Star Fisheries for decades. Star Fisheries’ use of water and salt allegedly caused structural damage over time. In 2010, Mainspring learned of damage and made some repairs but did not implement all recommended preventive measures. In 2021–2022, additional similar structural damage was discovered, and ...
Qui Tam Relators are not officers of the United States
Posted on September 4, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Attempt to use Constitution to Stop a Qui Tam False Claims Act Case
Post 5486
FCA’s Qui Tam Provisions do not Violate the Appointments Clause.
In United States Of America, Clarissa Zafirov, ex rel; Dr. v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, d.b.a. Vipcare, Physician Partners, LLC, Anion Technologies, LLC, Freedom Health, Inc., Optimum Healthcare, Inc., Physician Partners Specialty Services, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 1, 2026).
The False Claims Act (“FCA”) allows the Attorney General to bring civil suits against perpetrators of fraud against the government. This case involves another portion of the FCA-the qui tam provisions-which allow people, called relators, who have knowledge about fraud against the government to pursue a case against the perpetrator of the fraud.
Dr. Clarissa Zafirov filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act on behalf of...
Posted on September 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
You Only Get One Chance to Sue
Post 5484
In David Cromp v. Johnny Harkrider, Monique Harkrider, and their Marital Community, dba Able Plumbing Plus, No. 61678-5-II, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2 (August 25, 2026) David Cromp hired Able Plumbing Plus in 2018 to install plumbing, including two toilets, at his residence. In 2019, both toilets allegedly leaked, causing damage. Insurance claims were submitted through Able’s contractor policy, but the insurer eventually denied the claims.
Cromp sued Able in 2022 for breach of contract based on the allegedly defective toilet installation. During that case, Cromp attempted to add claims related to Able’s conduct during the insurance claim process, including fraud, bad faith, tortious conduct, and bond-related claims, but the superior court denied leave to amend. The 2022 breach-of-contract claim was later dismissed with prejudice on summary judgment as time-barred.
On the same day the 2022 case was dismissed, Cromp filed a ...
