Trial Judge Committed No Abuse in Having Winner Chase 49 Individual Plaintiffs to Collect $2,700 Pro Rated Costs Rather Than the Whole Enchilada.
In Aspell v. Mercury Casualty, Case No. B244501 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Feb. 13, 2014) (unpublished), an insurer obtained a jury verdict in its favor against 49 homeowners claiming they were inadequately compensated for ash/soot/smoke damage from a nearby wildfire. The insurer sought routine costs of $138,703.56, and was awarded most of them, with the lower court denying plaintiffs’ request to apportion the costs among them on a pro rata basis.
The appellate court affirmed.
First of all, the plaintiffs failed to object within 10 days to a proposed judgment articulating that a costs award would be joint and several.
However, even on the merits, no abuse of discretion occurred in the denial of the apportionment request. No apportionment is required under case law where a single theory is pursued against the defense by multiple plaintiffs, the situation here. (Acosta v. SI Corp., 129 Cal.App.4th 1370, 1376 (2005).) The appellate court, bottom line, found nothing wrong in not making the insurer chase 49 people for $2,700 each rather than going after the whole enchilada against everyone (or selected homeowners).
The whole enchilada. Russell Lee, photographer. 1941. Library of Congress.