Ward v. Superior Court

Opinion

KINGSLEY, J.

Petitioner and the real party in interest were involved in an automobile accident. The real party in interest filed suit against for damages arising out of that accident. On May 21, 1973, with service of the summons, and complaint in that action, the real party in interest caused to be served on petitioner a statutory offer of compromise (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 998 and 999) in the following terms:

“To the defendant herein, Harry James Ward, and his attorneys, insurance company and private lawyer, if any:

“You, and each of you, will please take notice that plaintiff offers to allow judgment, pursuant to C.C.P. §§ 998 and 999 in an amount equal to the single-person pay limit provided in defendant Ward’s policy of with the Automobile Club of Southern California.

“Because at the time of the making of this offer, plaintiff has not yet discovered the exact dollar amount provided in said policy, in the event the offer is accepted, plaintiff will insist on a sworn statement from defendant and his carrier, that the Auto Club policy is the sole insurance policy liability coverage, and in the event that the defendant in fact has other liability coverage that would apply to this case, defendant will be required to so advise plaintiff under oath. In that case, plaintiff requires that the Auto Club policy be paid in full, that no release be required, but rather in the event of other liability coverage, defendant will be entitled to a credit on any ultimate judgment rendered, to the extent payment on the Auto Club policy is made.

“Failure to accept this offer within 30 days of the date of service upon defendant, will mean that plaintiffs will claim interest from the date of service of the offer on defendant Ward, and costs of all expert witnesses employed.”

[69]

On June 8, 1973, counsel for the real party in interest wrote to an employee of the Auto Club,

1

reciting that inquiry had disclosed assets of petitioner in addition to his insurance policy with the club,

2