Plaintiff May Have Been Overreaching When He Followed Defendant’s $15,001 Offer With His Own $299,995 Offer Given Jury’s Return Of Defense Verdict.
Grayfer v. Wawanesa General Ins. Co., Case No. B285554 (2d Dist., Div. 7 November 18, 2019) (unpublished) provides a cautionary tale about the risk involved in overreaching and rejecting reasonable section 998 offers.
Plaintiff sued his insurance company after his car was stolen – valuing his car at $31,263.43 in his complaint. Insurance company made a Code Civ. Proc. § 998 offer to settle plaintiff’s claims for $15,001, but plaintiff rejected the offer and served his own offer in the amount of $299,995. The insurance company rejected plaintiff’s offer and the matter proceeded to trial. Following the defense verdict returned by the jury and entry of judgment in its favor, the insurance company filed its memorandum of costs which included almost $70,000 in expert witness fees. Plaintiff moved to tax costs – especially the expert witness fees – arguing insurance company was not entitled to recover fees because its 998 offer was unreasonable and made in bad faith, the experts were not court ordered, and the amounts incurred were unreasonable and unnecessary. The trial court rejected plaintiff’s arguments – finding the 998 offer reasonable in light of Plaintiff’s claimed emotional distress, the value plaintiff placed on his stolen car, insurance company’s denial of liability for plaintiff’s loss, and the ultimate jury verdict confirming insurance company’s stance on liability.
After entry of the order awarding its costs/expert witness fees, the insurance company levied plaintiff’s bank accounts, to which plaintiff filed a claim of exemption asserting social security and disability payments were deposited into the levied accounts. After a hearing on plaintiff’s exemption claim, the trial court found one single account was exempt as it received social security benefits, but found no exemptions for plaintiff’s other accounts.
Plaintiff appealed the rulings on both his motion to tax costs and his claimed exemption motion, and the 2/7 DCA affirmed – finding no abuse of discretion in the costs ruling and no error in the claim of exemption ruling.
Comments