During these challenging times, Severson & Werson remains open and in full operation, consistent with the firm’s previously established contingency planning. While many of our attorneys and staff will be working remotely, as a firm, we continue in full operation. We are here to help, as always.

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

Firm Profile

998 Offer

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

Covert v. FCA USA, LLC, No. B303663, 2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 14 (Ct. App. Jan. 4, 2022)

Following Duale v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 718, this decision holds that a valid and reasonable section 998 offer by the seller, where the buyer recovers less than the offer, precludes recovery by the buyer of post-offer attorneys’ fees and costs under Code of Civil Procedure section 1794(d) of the Song-Beverly Warranty Act claim.  Here, the defendant's initial… Read More

Oakes v. Progressive Transp. Servs., Inc., No. B305535, 2021 Cal. App. LEXIS 947 (Ct. App. Nov. 10, 2021)

Plaintiff recovered a $115,000 jury verdict after having rejected defendant's $200,000 998 offer.  This decision holds that the defendant's post-offer costs awarded by the trial court under CCP 998 must be subtracted from the $115,000 jury verdict before computing the amount of the judgment payable to the workers' comp. lienor under Lab. Code 3856.  Since the post-offer costs exceeded $115,000,… Read More

Oakes v. Progressive Transp. Servs., Inc., No. B305535, 2021 Cal. App. LEXIS 947 (Ct. App. Nov. 10, 2021)

Defendant's $200,000 998 offer was clear, not ambiguous, and was enforceable when plaintiff recovered less than $200,000--even though the offer did not refer to the workers’ compensation lien and state whether settlement proceeds could be used to recoup the lien.  Absence of a reference to the workers' comp. lien didn't render the offer uncertain or invalid.  A party making a… Read More

Wasito v. Kazali, No. B308826, 2021 Cal. App. LEXIS 719 (Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2021)

Labor Code 206 and 206.5 require an employer to pay an employee all wages the employer concedes are due without condition and without any release of the employee's disputed claims, if any, to other wages.  Here, the employer conceded it owed plaintiff a bonus, but before paying it sent the plaintiff a 998 offer to settle all wage claims.  Held,… Read More

Khosravan v. Chevron Corp., No. B307482, 2021 Cal. App. LEXIS 559 (Ct. App. July 6, 2021)

Term of 998 offer requiring plaintiff to indemnify defendant against claims by third parties on the same allegations as the complaint rendered the 998 offer ineffective to shift costs after defendant was dismissed from the action.  Though it was understandable that defendant wanted preclude wrongful death claims by heirs of the plaintiff who claimed defendant was liable for his mesothelium… Read More

Arriagarazo v. BMW of North America, LLC (2021)

BMW sent plaintiff a 998 offer, proposing to settle this personal injury case for $15,000 in exchange for a general release.  The 998 offer did not mention entry of judgment against BMW or specify that plaintiff would file a dismissal with prejudice instead.  Plaintiff accepted the offer.  Then the parties disagreed about terms of the release and entry of judgment. … Read More