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
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 ...
Chutzpah is not Enough
Post 5397
Posted on July 20, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video and at https://lnkd.in/gNUs2XzT and at https://lnkd.in/g2MawyzX
Magistrate Issues a Search Warrant if there is a Fair Probability that Contraband or Evidence of a Crime will be Found in a Particular Place.
In United States Of America v. Frank Suess, et al., CRIMINAL No. 3:24-308, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (July 16, 2026) a federal grand jury indicted Frank Suess, Melissa Driscoll, and others in a 55-count health care fraud and anti-kickback prosecution arising from an alleged scheme involving medically unnecessary prescription “foot baths.”
As part of the investigation, the FBI obtained an August 19, 2022 warrant to search Driscoll’s Sterling Pharmacy Yahoo email account for emails from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2020. Driscoll moved to suppress the resulting evidence, arguing that the warrant lacked probable cause, was overbroad, and rested on material misstatements and omissions.
LAW:
The ...
Fraud Shouldn’t Pay
Post 5396
See the video and at https://rumble.com/v7ctgmq-the-great-jewel-theft.html at https://youtu.be/aRbQ2sJfGwA
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.
The Insured purchased, for the first time in his life, a policy of Personal Articles Floater Insurance (PAF) scheduling $125,000 worth of ladies jewelry. He advised the insurer that the jewelry was always kept in a class E safe at his residence. He also told the insurer that he was employed full time as the owner of a gasoline service station and that he had never been canceled or suffered a previous loss.
One month after the policy was ...
Day Care Owner Loses Subsidies Because She Criticized State
Post 5421
Posted on August 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
First Amendment Right Will be Allowed to Go to Trial
In Betsey J. Grant v. Maine State Department Of Heath And Human Services, No. 1:25-cv-00490-JAW, United States District Court, D. Maine (August 6, 2026), Betsey J. Grant, a licensed childcare provider and operator of Tiny Tikes Daycare in Trenton, Maine, sued Maine DHHS and several employees after she publicly criticized DHHS before Maine’s Government Oversight Committee and alleged that officials retaliated against her.
She claimed DHHS imposed and extended a conditional license, published stigmatizing information, interfered with subsidies and program funding, removed her from a food program, rescinded an expansion grant, and used biased or falsified evidence in licensing proceedings. Following the March 10, 2023, GOC testimony, Ms. Grant alleges that foster children's subsidies (approximately $30,000) were withheld; she was removed from the ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units. After an underlying personal injury action was filed, Union Mutual determined that the property actually contained three apartment units and rescinded the policies on the ground that the defendants had made a material misrepresentation in the applications.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true facts been disclosed. To establish materiality as a matter of law, the insurer must submit documentation of its underwriting practices, such as manuals, guidelines, bulletins, or rules addressing similar risks.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
As a result, the...
