Cadlo

Cadlo v. METALCLAD INSULATION CORP.

Good Law
172 Cal. App. 4th 1040·2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 469·91 Cal. Rptr. 3d 653
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 30, 2009A120678California2,289 words

Opinion

Opinion

Simons, J.

After two defendants in a personal injury case rejected the plaintiffs’ offers to compromise (Code Civ. Proc., § 998), the jury returned an award of damages against the defendants that exceeded the plaintiffs’ offers. Civil Code section 3291 provides that if a defendant does not timely accept a Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer to compromise (hereafter 998 offer) and the plaintiff obtains a more favorable judgment, the plaintiff is entitled to specified annual interest. Relying on section 3291, the trial court determined defendants Metalclad Insulation Corporation (Metalclad) and John Crane Inc. (Crane) (collectively respondents), are jointly and severally liable for prejudgment interest on the judgment. Plaintiff Maxlyn Cadlo (appellant), individually and as successor in interest to decedent Anthony Cadlo, contends that Metalclad and Crane should each be liable for such prejudgment interest on the entire judgment. We reject the contention and affirm.

BACKGROUND

In September 2002, appellant and Anthony filed a complaint against respondents for Anthony’s asbestos-related personal injury and appellant’s loss of consortium. On November 19, appellant and Anthony…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.