New CCP 998 Case
New CCP 998 Case: Which CCP 998 Offer Counts When You Send More than One?
The California Court of Appeal Court addressed this issue last month. Below is my one-paragraph case summary from my online publication California Case Summaries™:
Meehan v. Aguirre (2026) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2026 WL 2718514: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s orders denying prevailing party plaintiff’s request for expert witness costs and prejudgment interest, and taxing other litigation costs (including trial technician fees and Day in the Life video expenses) after plaintiff prevailed in her personal injury action. The trial court denied the costs, concluding that plaintiff’s recovery did not exceed her own section Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer (998 offer) and she also failed to substantiate that the disputed costs were reasonable and necessary. The Court of Appeal held that under the "last offer rule" a plaintiff's final, unrevoked 998 offer controlled for determining entitlement to expert fees and prejudgment interest under both section 998 and Civil Code section 3291—even where an earlier offer was exceeded by the judgment—and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in taxing costs plaintiff failed to substantiate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5. Practitioner Takeaways: (1) When a plaintiff serves multiple unrevoked section 998 offers, only the last offer is operative for measuring whether the defendant "failed to obtain a more favorable judgment"—earlier, more favorable-to-plaintiff offers are extinguished and cannot be revived on appeal; (2) Prejudgment interest under Civil Code section 3291 rises and falls with the same last-offer analysis, despite Civil Code section 3291's reference to the plaintiff's "first offer," because that language presupposes a still-operative offer; (3) Costs sought under section Code of Civil Procedure 1033.5 (e.g., trial technician or exhibit-related costs) require contemporaneous, particularized evidentiary support—invoices or declarations—establishing both necessity and reasonableness, or the request risks being taxed in its entirety; and (4) Counsel should carefully evaluate the strategic effect of serving a substantially higher final section 998 offer late in litigation, since it can extinguish the cost-shifting benefits of earlier, more conservative offers even if the ultimate judgment would have exceeded them. (C.A. 2nd, September 15, 2026.)
I handle a few select civil cases where I represent plaintiffs or defendants in business, insurance bad faith, personal injury, real property and wrongful death actions. Using my experience as a California civil trial lawyer since 1980, and a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates since 1995, my goal is to get each client the best possible result. My clients get the benefit of big firm experience with small firm attention and reasonable rates. To discuss a potential case, email me at monty@montymcintyre.com, or call me at (619) 990-4312.
Do well and be well.
Best regards,
Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.
Business, Insurance Bad Faith, Real Property and Tort Litigation.
Trial Mentoring™: Trial training & preparation
Podcaster: Trial Alchemy™
Publisher: California Case Summaries™
CA attorney since 1980. ABOTA Member Since 1995
Past President San Diego County Bar Assn., SD ABOTA Chapter
Phone: (619) 990-4312.
Email: monty@montymcintyre.com
