Despite Large Plaintiff Claimed Medical Expenses, Defense Liability Defenses Can Justify Lower Offers As Being In “Good Faith.”
Settlement. Cliff Dwellers of the North. 1913. Library of Congress.
In Jones v. Barnes, Case No. H037971 (6th Dist. Feb. 26, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiffs in a car accident case were defensed, after refusing separate CCP § 998 offers of $6,501 and $501 (despite the fact one of the plaintiffs claimed to have incurred $55,000 in medical bills). The lower court refused to tax, as costs under section 998, defense expert witness fees of $23,251.98.
Plaintiffs appealed, to no avail on this issue (as well as others).
Large medical losses alone do not justify labeling a 998 offer as being “bad faith” in nature. If the defense believes it can succeed on the liability phase and indeed proves it, these circumstances can support a low 998 offer under the right situation. (Colbaugh v. Harline, 29 Cal.App.4th 1516, 1528-1529 (1994).) Here, the defense prevailed based on showing no negligence and no causation. Plaintiffs’ argument that the 998 offers were flawed because they were made before a medical exam of plaintiff (a damages issue) simply did not negate that the offers were good based on the defense liability assessment, which panned out ultimately.
