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
Jury’s Findings Interpreting Insurance Contract Affirmed
Post 5105
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gPa6Vpg8 and at https://lnkd.in/ghgiZNBN, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc. (“Madelaine Chocolate”) appealed the district court’s judgment following a jury verdict in favor of Great Northern Insurance Company (“Great Northern”) concerning storm-surge damage caused by “Superstorm Sandy” to Madelaine Chocolate’s production facilities.
In Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc., d.b.a. The Madelaine Chocolate Company v. Great Northern Insurance Company, No. 23-212, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (June 20, 2025) affirmed the trial court ruling in favor of the insurer.
BACKGROUND
Great Northern refused to pay the full claim amount and paid Madelaine Chocolate only about $4 million. In disclaiming coverage, Great Northern invoked the Policy’s flood-exclusion provision, which excludes, in relevant part, “loss or damage caused by ....
Failure to Name a Party as an Additional Insured Defeats Claim
Post 5104
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gbcTYSNa, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggmDyTnT and at https://lnkd.in/gZ-uZPh7, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Contract Interpretation is Based on the Clear and Unambiguous Language of the Policy
In Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. v. Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltd., No. 23-CV-10400 (MMG), United States District Court, S.D. New York (June 16, 2025) an insurance coverage dispute arising from a personal injury action in New York State Supreme Court.
The underlying action, Eduardo Molina v. Venchi 2, LLC, et al., concerned injuries allegedly resulting from a construction accident at premises owned by Central Area Equities Associates LLC (CAEA) and leased by Venchi 2 LLC with the USDC required to determine who was entitled to a defense from which insurer.
KEY POINTS
Parties Involved:
CAEA is insured by Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. ...
Exclusion Establishes that There is No Duty to Defend Off Site Injuries
Post 5103
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/geje73Gh, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gnQp4X-f and at https://lnkd.in/gPPrB47p, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Attack by Vicious Dog Excluded
In Foremost Insurance Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan v. Michael B. Steele and Sarah Brown and Kevin Lee Price, Civil Action No. 3:24-CV-00684, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (June 16, 2025)
Foremost Insurance Company (“Foremost”) sued Michael B. Steele (“Steele”), Sarah Brown (“Brown”), and Kevin Lee Price (“Price”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Foremost sought declaratory relief in the form of a declaration that
1. it owes no insurance coverage to Steele and has no duty to defend or indemnify Steele in an underlying tort action and
2. defense counsel that Foremost has assigned to Steele in the underlying action may withdraw his appearance.
Presently before the Court are two ...
ZIFL Volume 29, Issue 10
The Source for the Insurance Fraud Professional
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gK_P4-BK and at https://lnkd.in/g2Q7BHBu, and at https://zalma.com/blog and at https://lnkd.in/gjyMWHff.
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 29th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ You can read the full issue of the May 15, 2025 issue at http://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ZIFL-05-15-2025.pdf
This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
Health Care Fraud Trial Results in Murder for Hire of Witness
To Avoid Conviction for Insurance Fraud Defendants Murder Witness
In United States of America v. Louis Age, Jr.; Stanton Guillory; Louis Age, III; Ronald Wilson, Jr., No. 22-30656, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (April 25, 2025) the Fifth Circuit dealt with the ...
Professional Health Care Services Exclusion Effective
Post 5073
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-f6Tjm5 and at https://lnkd.in/gx3agRzi, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
This opinion is the recommendation of a Magistrate Judge to the District Court Judge and involves Travelers Casualty Insurance Company and its duty to defend the New Mexico Bone and Joint Institute (NMBJI) and its physicians in a medical negligence lawsuit brought by Tervon Dorsey.
In Travelers Casualty Insurance Company Of America v. New Mexico Bone And Joint Institute, P.C.; American Foundation Of Lower Extremity Surgery And Research, Inc., a New Mexico Corporation; Riley Rampton, DPM; Loren K. Spencer, DPM; Tervon Dorsey, individually; Kimberly Dorsey, individually; and Kate Ferlic as Guardian Ad Litem for K.D. and J.D., minors, No. 2:24-cv-0027 MV/DLM, United States District Court, D. New Mexico (May 8, 2025) the Magistrate Judge Recommended:
Insurance Coverage Dispute:
Travelers issued a Commercial General Liability ...
A Heads I Win, Tails You Lose Story
Post 5062
Posted on April 30, 2025 by Barry Zalma
"This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud that explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is designed to help everyone 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."
Immigrant Criminals Attempt to Profit From Insurance Fraud
People who commit insurance fraud as a profession do so because it is easy. It requires no capital investment. The risk is low and the profits are high. The ease with which large amounts of money can be made from insurance fraud removes whatever moral hesitation might stop the perpetrator from committing the crime.
The temptation to do everything outside the law was the downfall of the brothers Karamazov. The brothers had escaped prison in the old Soviet Union by immigrating to the United...
