The appellate panel found that case law did not compel the use of molded judgments in determining whether sanctions should be awarded under Rule 4:58.
#OFFER OF JUDGMENT TRIAL#
On appeal, Numatics asserted that the trial court erred in granting plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees because Numatics’ molded share of the total verdict ($107,400) did not exceed 120 percent of plaintiff’s Offer of Judgment ($125,00). Since the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff greater than 120 percent of the plaintiff’s Offer of Judgment, the trial judge granted plaintiffs’ motion for attorney fees and costs pursuant to R.
The jury returned a verdict in plaintiff’s favor for $358,000 and Numatics’ molded share of the verdict was $107,400.
The defendants did not accept or render a counteroffer. Prior to trial, the plaintiff made a single, joint Offer of Judgment to the defendants of $125,000 per Rule 4:58. The plaintiff in Willner was injured while climbing a rock wall and brought suit against the manufacturer of the wall (Vertical Reality) and the manufacturer of parts contained in the wall (Numatics).
The outcome of the Willner case leaves the application of the Offer of Judgment rule in a multi-defendant case “unclear.” As such, going forward, New Jersey judges have been given little guidance about the circumstances under which sanctions are allowable when a plaintiff makes an Offer of Judgment in a multi-defendant case where no defendant makes an offer.
#OFFER OF JUDGMENT PRO#
4:58-4(b) contemplates an analysis of each defendant’s offer when compared with that defendant’s pro rata share, the Supreme Court in Willner looked at the impact of an Offer of Judgment in a multi-defendant case where no defendant makes an offer. According to New Jersey’s Supreme Court, the Offer of Judgment Rule “leaves unclear the circumstances triggering the imposition of sanctions on an individual Defendant when a single Plaintiff makes a global offer to multiple Defendants, there is no acceptance of the offer, and no counter offer is made in response.” Willner v. Last summer, New Jersey’s Supreme Court issued a decision which has left attorneys and trial judges unsure of how the rule should be applied in multi-defendant litigations on a going-forward basis. This author is aware that certain New Jersey practitioners utilize the Offer of Judgment Rule early in a litigation, before any meaningful assessment can be made of exposure, as the proverbial Sword of Damocles to be held over defendants should settlement efforts be unsuccessful. An early Offer of Judgment can subject defendants to potentially significant sanctions. If an early Offer of Judgment is made by the plaintiff, what should the consequence be on a defendant joined near the end or after the expiration of the Offer of Judgment period? Moreover, how are the allowances of the rule appropriately attributed to each defendant if they have varying degrees of fault, if some but not all respond to the offer? How, if at all, is the Offer of Judgment and the rule’s allowances as to a non-settling defendant impacted by the settlement of some defendants during the offer period?ĭespite the numerous questions, the Offer of Judgment rule can be an effective weapon in the hands of a skilled plaintiff’s lawyer. Defendants in multi-defendant actions may file answers at differing times. Of course, one could envision a number of scenarios wherein the difficulties of applying the Offer of Judgment can arise in multi-defendant actions. While the plain language is rather straightforward, in practice, lawyers and judges have wrestled with the application of the rule in cases involving multiple defendants. Similarly, the rule affords defendants allowances should the plaintiff fail to accept a defense Offer of Judgment, and the money judgment is 80 percent or less than the defendant’s offer. To achieve that laudable goal, if a plaintiff makes an Offer of Judgment, which is not accepted and the plaintiff thereafter obtains a money judgment in an amount that is 120 percent or more than the offer, the plaintiff “shall be allowed” to recover: (1) reasonable litigation expenses following non-acceptance, (2) prejudgment interest of 8 percent from the date of the offer or date of completion of discovery, whichever is later, and (3) a reasonable attorney’s fee for services compelled by the non-acceptance. 4:58) was “designed to produce early out-of-court settlements.” Crudup v.
New Jersey Law Journal (reprinted with permission)