The plaintiffs brought two separate actions for damages arising out of two motor vehicle accidents, alleging both accidents contributed to indivisible injuries.
The actions were tried together.
The defendants made separate offers to settle that did not comply with the joint offer requirements of Rule 49.11, but combined, exceeded the plaintiffs' recovery at trial.
The trial judge declined to apply the costs consequences of Rule 49.10 or consider the offers under Rule 49.13.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that while Rule 49.10 did not apply due to the allegation of joint and several liability, the trial judge erred by failing to consider the offers under the discretionary power of Rule 49.13 and the offer to contribute under Rule 49.12.
The appeal was allowed, and costs were reapportioned.
