## Facts

- Richard Adams, a “shade tree mechanic,” performed routine maintenance on used vehicles, including five Ford-manufactured vehicles, and replaced brake pads that allegedly released asbestos-containing dust.
- Adams developed mesothelioma and died; his spouse and children sued Ford and others for wrongful death based on alleged asbestos exposure.
- Plaintiffs claimed roughly $150,000 in medical expenses, $1,000,000 in lost earnings, and $1,000,000 in general damages, and settled with other defendants for relatively modest amounts.
- Before trial, Ford served a California Code of Civil Procedure § 998 offer of $2,500 per plaintiff ($10,000 total) plus a mutual waiver of costs; plaintiffs did not accept.
- A jury returned a defense verdict for Ford.
- Ford sought approximately $185,741.82 in costs, including about $167,570 in expert witness fees, relying on § 998 cost-shifting.
- Plaintiffs moved to tax costs, arguing the § 998 offer was a bad-faith token offer and the expert fees were not reasonably necessary; the trial court denied the motion.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by finding Ford’s § 998 offer was reasonable and made in good faith, permitting recovery of expert witness fees after Ford obtained a defense verdict.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by awarding Ford’s expert witness fees as reasonably necessary costs under § 998.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the posttrial costs order.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining Ford’s § 998 offer was made in good faith and was reasonably calculated to encourage settlement.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding Ford’s expert witness fees were reasonably necessary for trial preparation and recoverable under § 998.

## Legal Principles

- A § 998 offer is evaluated for good faith based on information available when made, including the offering party’s assessment of liability and likelihood of success at trial; a low offer is not automatically a bad-faith token.
- A defendant’s inclusion of a mutual waiver of costs may have material settlement value, particularly in complex, expert-intensive litigation, and may support a finding that the offer carried a reasonable prospect of acceptance.
- If a defendant makes a valid § 998 offer and obtains a more favorable judgment (including a defense verdict), the defendant may recover expert witness fees reasonably necessary to prepare for and try the case.
- Trial-court determinations regarding § 998 good faith and the reasonable necessity of expert fees are reviewed on appeal for abuse of discretion and receive substantial deference.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Ford’s recovery of costs and substantial expert witness fees under § 998 because the modest monetary offer, coupled with a mutual cost waiver, could reasonably be viewed as a good-faith settlement effort, and the expert fees were reasonably necessary in an asbestos causation trial.


Adams v. Ford Motor Co., 199 Cal. App. 4th 1475, 132 Cal. Rptr. 3d 424 (Ct. App. 2011)