MICHAEL D. MARCUS’S MEDIATION MESSAGE NO. 97 ACCEPTANCE LANGUAGE IN A SECTION 998 OFFER TO COMPROMISE Rouland v. Pacific Specialty Ins. Co. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 280 clarified the required wording for acceptance of a Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer to compromise. In Rouland, defendant Pacific Specialty offered to pay the two plaintiffs $5,000 and $30,000 in exchange for general releases and dismissals with prejudice and then stated, “If you accept this offer, please…
MICHAEL D. MARCUS’S MEDIATION MESSAGE NO. 88 MULTIPLE SECTION 998 SETTLEMENT OFFERS In recently decided Martinez v. Brownco Construction Co. (June 10, 2013) 56 Cal.4th 1014, the California Supreme Court held that when a plaintiff makes two successive Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offers, the defendant does not accept either offer and fails to obtain a judgment more favorable than either offer, allowing recovery of expert fees incurred from the date of the first…
MICHAEL MARCUS’S MEDIATION MESSAGE NO. 71 THE LOCATION OF THE TRIAL, SECTION 998 OFFERS AND DAMAGES Last month, I discussed a study in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies which found that there is a high incidence of decision-making error by both plaintiffs and defendants in rejecting settlement proposals and going to trial or arbitration. Other interesting findings in that study are the impact of the type of trial and statutory C.C.P. sec. 998 offers…
THE WORDING OF A C.C.P. SECTION 998 OFFER TO COMPROMISE Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offers to compromise are an integral part of the settlement process. Engle v. Copenbarger and Copenbarger (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 165 offers a well-advised cautionary tale as to how such offers should be worded. In that matter, Engle, a former legal assistant for Copenbarger and Copenbarger (Copenbarger), sued it for both statutory discrimination (sex harassment, sex discrimination and retaliation) and…