A simple but interesting point about offers of judgment.

In this med-mal case Plaintiff had made two offers, almost one year apart. The verdict exceeded both. The question was whether the interest sanction should run from the time of the first or of the second. The trial court used the first; Defendant appealed.

The Court of Appeals affirms. Defendant relied on a Nevada case to the effect that the second offer wipes out the first. “The weight of the authorities construing similar state court rules, however, is to the contrary, when, as here, the judgment finally obtained is less favorable to the offeree than both offers.” The court feels that a contrary rule could inhibit the making of offers and thus reduce chances of settlement.

In this and a separate memo the court also deals with other issues but the part about OJs is the take-away.

(Opinion: Orosco v. MCSHCD)