RFAs Shift Fees When You Can't Win

Samsky v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. B293885 (D2d8 as modified Jul. 23, 2019)


If a party denies a request for admission but fails to prevail on the issue at trial, the propounding party is entitled to recover costs of proof under Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.420(a) unless an exception in § 2033.420(b) applies. Although the burdens aren’t expressly set out in the statute, the Court of Appeal here decides that the structure of the statute assigns the burden of proof of an exception to the party seeking to avoid fees by justifying its denial.

Here, Plaintiff asked an Insurer to admit, among other things, that a tortfeasor was negligent and a cause of his injuries. Insurer denied. But Plaintiff prevailed on the issue in an arbitration. When Plaintiff sought fees, however, the trial court found that Plaintiff had not shown the lack of a reasonable justification for the denial. That got the burden wrong. Insurer didn’t offer adequate evidence of its own to sustain its burden. That required it to come forward with credible, admissible evidence on which a contrary finding could have been sustained, such that Insurer had a reasonable belief that it would prevail at trial. So no exception was established. Plaintiff should have recovered his fees.

Reversed.

Defendants, Discounts, and Damages

Lewis v. Ukran, No. B290128 (D2d4 Jun. 26, 2019)

Interesting question, somewhat procedural. 

Question is: When a damage award includes damages for future injuries such as lost wages or future medical expenses, who bears the burden of justifying a reduction to present value? State law is silent on the issue, and federal courts are split. The court here decides that the burden should fall on the party that wants to alter the status quo from the face value of the verdict. So a defendant seeking a reduction based on a discount factor bears the burden of production and proof to establish present value. But in the event that inflation ever becomes an issue again, a plaintiff seeking to increase an award to offset future inflation would bear that burden. Here, neither party put in any evidence on discount. So in the absence of that, the trier of fact was neither required nor permitted to discount the future award to current value.

Affirmed.