L.A. County Gets Nada Monetary Relief After Credits, And Is Stung By Affirmance of 998 Offers by Insurers Costing It $5.9 Million.
The next one is the apparent conclusion of what our local Santa Ana appellate court analogized as being “easily the 14 Years War of civil litigation in Orange County” between Los Angeles County, seeking well over $100 million from certain insurers, and insurers who recovered $5.9 million from the County after their Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offers were rejected.
Above: The miseries and misfortunes of war (1632).
The decision capping this litigation war took the form of County of Los Angeles v. New York Marine and General Insurance Co., Case No. G038218 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 30, 2011) (unpublished), a 114-page unpublished opinion written with panache by Acting Presiding Justice Rylaarsdam on behalf of a 3-0 panel–must reading in the 998 area.
In affirming the 998 cost awards, here are the highlights of the appellate court’s discussion:
*998 offers do not have to deal with issues outside the pleadings, with underinclusive offers being better than overinclusive ones (Valentino v. Elliott Sav-On Gas, Inc., 201 Cal.App.3d 692 (1988) [condemning overinclusive offers]);
*Insurers’ 998 offers were nice models of simplicity, offering terms if County dismissed its complaint and if the insurers dismissed their cross-complaints;
*A 998 offer does not require a party to make a global settlement offer to all opponents or to resolve all aspects of a case (One Star, Inc. v. STAAR Surgical Co., 179 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1096 (2009));
*a 998 offer does not need to clear up all uncertainties between the parties as long as it is specific in what it proposes, with the parties encouraged to meet and confer over uncertainties or make counteroffers (Berg v. Darden, 120 Cal.App.4th 721 (2004); Hartline v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, 132 Cal.App.4th 458 (2005));
*998 offers are interpreted as contracts, with the insurers doing a good job in this case of making a specific statement containing clear terms and conditions in the offers.
The last issue was debunking County’s argument that it actually prevailed. Although it did get credits from prior settlements with other defendants, plaintiff recovered no monetary judgment in the end. Goodman v. Lozano, 47 Cal.4th 1327 (2010) [one of our Leading Cases] put the nail in this argument, holding that a party recovering nothing monetarily by way of trial is not a prevailing party (even if prior credits got the matter down to this “zero result”).