Martinez v. Brownco Construction Co.
56 Cal.4th 1014 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a plaintiff makes multiple settlement offers under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998, and the defendant fails to obtain a judgment more favorable than any of the offers, the first offer is not extinguished by subsequent offers for the purpose of recovering post-offer expert witness fees.
Facts:
- Raymond Martinez was severely injured in an electrical explosion while working, which was allegedly caused by Brownco Construction Company, Inc. (Brownco).
- Raymond Martinez sued for negligence and his wife, Gloria Martinez, sued for loss of consortium.
- In August 2007, Gloria Martinez served Brownco with a statutory settlement offer under section 998 to resolve her claim for $250,000.
- Brownco did not accept the August 2007 offer within the statutory period.
- In February 2010, just before trial, Gloria Martinez served a second, reduced settlement offer on Brownco for $100,000.
- Brownco did not accept the February 2010 offer.
Procedural Posture:
- Raymond and Gloria Martinez sued Brownco Construction Company, Inc. in a California trial court.
- A jury returned a verdict for Gloria Martinez, awarding her a judgment of $250,000.
- The plaintiffs filed a memorandum of costs, seeking to recover expert fees incurred from the date of Gloria Martinez's first offer in 2007.
- Brownco filed a motion to tax costs, arguing that the second offer from 2010 extinguished the first, limiting cost recovery to the period after the second offer.
- The trial court granted Brownco's motion, disallowing the expert fees incurred between the first and second offers.
- The plaintiffs appealed the trial court's order.
- The Court of Appeal, as the intermediate appellate court, reversed the trial court's decision.
- The Supreme Court of California granted Brownco's petition for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff's second settlement offer under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998 extinguish an earlier, unaccepted offer for the purpose of recovering expert witness fees when the defendant fails to obtain a judgment more favorable than either offer?
Opinions:
Majority - Baxter, J.
No. A second statutory offer does not extinguish a prior offer for the purpose of recovering expert fees when the defendant fails to obtain a judgment more favorable than either offer. The primary purpose of section 998 is to encourage settlement by creating financial incentives for reasonable offers and disincentives for unreasonable rejections. Applying the general contract law principle that a later offer extinguishes a prior one would defeat this purpose by deterring plaintiffs from making early offers or adjusting their demands as a case develops. Allowing a plaintiff to recover costs from the date of the first reasonable offer, when the final judgment is less favorable to the defendant than all offers made, best promotes the statute's policy goals. Furthermore, the trial court retains discretion under the statute to award costs, which serves as a check against any potential gamesmanship by the offering party.
Analysis:
This decision carves out a significant exception to the judicially-created 'last offer rule' that previously governed multiple settlement offers under section 998. The court prioritizes the statute's underlying policy of encouraging settlement over the rigid application of common law contract principles. The ruling provides clarity and protection for plaintiffs who make multiple, reasonable offers, ensuring they are not penalized for adjusting their settlement position as litigation progresses. It increases the financial risk for defendants who reject a series of reasonable offers, thereby strengthening the incentive to settle early and reasonably.
