It Disagrees With The Court of Appeal’s Categorical Invalidity Argument.
In Gorobets v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, Case No. S287946 (Cal. Supreme Court Aug. 6, 2026) (published), the California Supreme Court endorsed CCP section 998 offers containing alternative options for acceptance, as long as clear in nature. Here is the heart of the opinion:
“The specific question in this case is whether a single 998 offer that presents two independent and alternative sets of terms and grants the offeree the right to accept by choosing between them is categorically nonconforming because an offer structured in that way lacks sufficient certainty. We hold that such a 998 offer can be valid so long as (1) the offer is structured so that it clearly presents the alternatives available to the offeree, and (2) at least one of the two independent sets of terms is sufficiently certain to permit an accurate valuation at the time the offer is made. Once validity is established, the court must determine whether section 998 cost shifting has been triggered by asking whether the party who rejected the 998 offer ‘fail[ed] to obtain a judgment or award more favorable’ than the highest value, valid alternative proposed. ([CCP 998]., subds. (c)(1), (d), (e).) We reject the Court of Appeal’s analysis and conclusion that alternative-choice offers are inherently uncertain, making them categorically prohibited by section 998.”