Although Identification Of Releasing Parties Does Not Invalidate An Offer, Inclusion of General Release/Section 1542 Waivers Did Void The Offer.
Freight train operations on the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad between Chicago and Clinton, Iowa. The rear brakeman signals the engineer to apply and release the brakes as a test. This is the "release" sign. January 1943. Jack Delano, photographer. Library of Congress.
Ignacio v. Caracciolo, Case No. B266930 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Aug. 3, 2016) (published) involved a personal injury case where defendant made a CCP § 998 offer which was rejected by the plaintiff, who subsequently recovered only $70,000 after a comparative negligence reduction brought the judgment below the prior 998 offer. Defendant then moved to tax plaintiff’s routine costs and moved to obtain certain costs/expenses based on the theory defendant prevailed based on the 998 offer. The trial court denied the motion to tax most of plaintiff’s costs and denied the defense costs request after determining the 998 offer was invalid, a determination affirmed by the appellate court.
The problem was that the 998 offer did contemplate a release, but the release supplied by the defense was too “general” in nature by encompassing release of claims beyond those involved in the lawsuit. Here is what the offending language said as far as the scope of the release: “… from any and all claims, demands, liens, agreements, contracts, covenants, actions, suits, causes of action, obligations, controversies, debts, costs, expenses, damages, judgments, orders, and liabilities of whatever kind and nature in law, equity, or otherwise, whether now known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, that have existed or may have existed or which do exist, or which hereinafter can, shall or may exist, including but without, in any respect, limiting the generality of the foregoing, any and all claims that were, or might, or could have been alleged in connection with an accident that occurred on or about April 10, 2013, and are the subject of the lawsuit entitled Ignacio v. Caracciolo, filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court, bearing case number BC511878 (‘Lawsuit’).” The reviewing court determined that identification of releasing parties, including boilerplate language inclusive of affiliates, administrators, heirs, etc., did not invalidate the offer. However, the stumbling point was the broad “general” release language which was not just targeted to the “including” clause which was limited more narrowly to the personal injury claims. This broad language, coupled with a Civil Code section 1542 waiver, sealed the deal from the 2/8 DCA panel as far as sustaining the invalidity determination of the lower court.
Comments