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
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Defendants Successfully Moved for Summary Judgment
Post 4854
Posted on September 30, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Jeffrey Wayne Phillips v. Creative Website Studios, et al., No. 5:23-CV-568-BO-BM, United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division (September 28, 2026) the Court needed to rule on the order and memorandum and recommendation (“M&R”) of the Magistrate.
Jeffrey Wayne Phillips had contracted with Creative Website Studios and SR Telecommunications for website and hosting services. He alleged that defendants repeatedly billed him for hosting periods he had already paid for and later took down his website. Phillips claimed the outage prevented him from bidding on U.S. government security contracts and sought roughly $300 million in consequential damages.
LAW
Under North Carolina law, fraud requires a false material representation or concealment, intent and effect of deception, resulting damage, and reasonable reliance. Obtaining property by false pretenses similarly requires an ...
Accused of 17 Counts Of Fraud Attempts to Keep Out Evidence of Crimes
Post 4853
Posted on September 29, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Court Refuses to Grant Most Motions in Limine
In United States Of America v. Seth Allen Aikens, II, Criminal No. 22-119, United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania (September 23, 2026) Defendant Seth Allen Aikens II faces thirty federal counts. The indictment alleges that, from about June 2016 through March 2020, Aikens solicited start-up businesses seeking websites, applications, hosting, payment processing, and related services. The Government estimated aggregate losses of approximately $1.3 million involving about eight charged customers.
The Government also sought to introduce evidence involving three uncharged persons. Robert Polonsky allegedly paid about $10,000 for web development, hosting, and advertising services but did not receive the promised core deliverables. Brandon Canwright allegedly paid approximately $1,877 for a website and related services that were not delivered and received no ...
Accused of 17 Counts Of Fraud Attempts to Keep Out Evidence of Crimes
Post 4853
Posted on September 29, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Court Refuses to Grant Most Motions in Limine
In United States Of America v. Seth Allen Aikens, II, Criminal No. 22-119, United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania (September 23, 2026) Defendant Seth Allen Aikens II faces thirty federal counts. The indictment alleges that, from about June 2016 through March 2020, Aikens solicited start-up businesses seeking websites, applications, hosting, payment processing, and related services. The Government estimated aggregate losses of approximately $1.3 million involving about eight charged customers.
The Government also sought to introduce evidence involving three uncharged persons. Robert Polonsky allegedly paid about $10,000 for web development, hosting, and advertising services but did not receive the promised core deliverables. Brandon Canwright allegedly paid approximately $1,877 for a website and related services that were not delivered and received no ...
