Weinberg

Weinberg v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America

Good Law
114 Cal. App. 4th 1075·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 9·2004 Daily Journal DAR 229·8 Cal. Rptr. 3d 224·125 A.L.R. 5th 687
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 7, 2004B158894, B160783California3,942 words

Opinion

Opinion

Woods, J.

These appeals began in an underinsured motorist (UIM) arbitration between appellant Safeco Insurance Company of America (Safeco) and respondent Morton Weinberg. Morton received an award well above the limits of his automobile policy with Safeco. After Safeco paid the policy limits, Morton and his wife, respondent Roberta B. Weinberg, sued Safeco for bad faith. Respondents lost, and judgment was entered for Safeco. When Safeco sought to recover its expert fees, the superior court found Safeco’s joint Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer (998 offer) to compromise was invalid. Safeco appealed from the order granting the Weinbergs’ motion to tax costs, i.e., Safeco’s expert fees, contending its 998 offer was valid. We affirm that order.

Just before trial in the bad faith action, the court granted Morton’s petition to have the arbitration award confirmed into a money judgment against Safeco. Safeco appealed from that judgment, which also awarded Morton certain costs and prejudgment interest. Safeco contends that the arbitration award should not have been confirmed as the arbitrator did not determine its liability to Morton, only the liability of the UIM to Morton, 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.