Cases: Section 998

  However, Article Actually Explores Nuances Applicable In Non-Employment Matters.      In the June 2015 edition of The Advocate Magazine, attorney Iris Weinmann—a partner in Greenberg & Weinmann (located in Santa Monica)—has authored a very instructive article entitled “Making and responding to CCP 998 offers in employment matters” and subtitled “Dealing with multiple parties, and […]

  Upshot Is What Prevailing Defendant On Complaint Entitled To 998 Expert Witness Fees.     “Dueling” 998 offers at play under a complaint and a cross-complaint were the subject of scrutiny in Horn v. Rand, Case No. B255051 (2d Dist., Div. 5 June 17, 2015) (unpublished).     Legal malpractice plaintiff failed to accept defendant attorney’s

  However, Trial Court Erred In Denying Section 998 Costs/Expert Fee Recovery To Prevailing Defendant Which Was Indemnified By Second Defendant Not Prevailing Against Plaintiff.     In Litt v. Eisenhower Medical Center, Case No. D067455 (4th Dist., Div. 1 June 19, 2015) (published), defendant #1 served a $15,000 998 offer on plaintiff, who later added

  Reason Was That Only Negotiated Medical Expenses Actually Paid By Her Insurer Should Have Been Considered At The Time Of The Offer.      In Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc., 52 Cal.4th 541, 548 (2011), the California Supreme Court decided that a negotiated rate differential included in a jury’s award in a personal

  Joint Offer by Plaintiffs, Unapportioned as to Three Defendants, Was Valid.      In Montoya v. Mayfield, Case No. B255995 (2d Dist., Div. 4 April 6, 2015) (unpublished), plaintiffs were involved in a serious accident with a truck driven by defendant employee, who was doing so in the course and scope of his employment by