Moffett

Moffett v. Barclay

Good Law
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 162·32 Cal. App. 4th 980·38 Cal. Rptr. 2d 546·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1482
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 27, 1995A065755California1,408 words

Opinion

Opinion

Haning, J.

Defendant/appellant Michelle Jane Barclay appeals from that portion of a judgment awarding plaintiff/respondent Russell Moffett prejudgment interest and expert witness costs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998. She contends respondent is not permitted to recover prejudgment interest and costs because he did not serve her personally with an offer to compromise (§ 998) when she was a party to the action.

Facts

On July 24, 1992, respondent filed an action against appellant and Does I-X for injuries sustained when the cars they were each driving collided. On August 10, 1992, respondent served an offer to compromise the action for $25,000 on Ada Lau at State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. The offer, which was addressed to “defendants and their attorneys of record,” stated that if it was not accepted within 30 days from the date of service, respondent would also claim prejudgment interest from the date of filing the offer. On August 27, 1992, respondent served the complaint and summons on appellant at her work address. Respondent never received a response to his offer to compromise. On September 28, 1992, appellant answered the complaint, generally and…

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.