$129,701 In Taxed Costs Was the Result.
The next case is somewhat of a chilling reminder to carefully word CCP § 998 offers, making sure the offer/acceptance sections are consistent and insuring that the offeror is covering how fees and costs are to dealt with if the offer is accepted. Also, offers must be allocated where there are multiple defendants, with lump-sum offers not passing muster.
Chilling reminder. Chilling room. 1940. John Vachon, photographer. Library of Congress.
Tapia v. Jones, Case No. B234511 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Oct. 25, 2012) (unpublished) is a situation where plaintiffs in a broadside car incident recovered substantial jury awards after sending a rejected 998 offer that offered to allow defendant to settle by stipulating to a $99,999.00 judgment in plaintiffs’ favor “plus taxable costs incurred to date of judgment.” However, aside from the lump-sum nature of the offer, there was another rub: the acceptance line parroted the judgment amount, but ended with “each side to bear its own costs of litigation.” Based on this inconsistency, the trial court taxed $129,701 of the requested $140,652 in costs (awarding only $10,951) based on the invalidity of the 998 offer.
This result was affirmed in a 3-0 opinion written by Justice Rubin.
The appellate court agreed that the 998 offer was ambiguous so that it was too uncertain to qualify as one under section 998–based on the ambiguity presented based on the different wording on “taxable costs.” (Bias v. Wright, 103 Cal.App.4th 811, 820-821 (2002).) Also, the lump-sum offer to multiple defendants without any indication of allocation among the defendants also made the offer too uncertain. (Taing v. Johnson Scaffolding Co., 9 Cal.App.4th 579, 583 (1992).)
Structure your 998 offers carefully, allocating out in multi-party situations and follow the procedural requirements set forth in section 998 itself, making sure the offer and acceptance sections are consistent in nature.
