Significant amendments to Rule 68 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure

On Leap Day, the Minnesota Supreme Court adopted significant changes to Rule 68 (PDF link), which outlines the procedure for making an offer of judgment or settlement (sometimes also referred to as a “firm offer”).

Rule 68 allows any party to offer judgment in a specified amount to the other party. That amount then becomes something like the measure of success of the lawsuit. The offeror must get a judgment of less than the amount offered, or it must pay the offeree’s costs and disbursements (under Minn. Stat. §§ 549.02 and 549.04). And vice-versa, if the offeree ultimately obtains a judgment of more than the amount offered.

The rule is, obviously, calculated to encourage settlement of cases. The new rule deviates significantly from both the old rule and the federal rule.

In cases where a party may recover attorney fees, the effect of Rule 68 is muddy. Do attorney fees count towards the amount offered, or not? (Under the old rule, for example, fees recoverable by contract would be subsumed in the offer; fees recoverable by statute would not.) The new rule attempts to solve the difficulty by differentiating between a “damages-only” offer and a “total-obligation” offer. As the terms (may) suggest, a damages-only offer does not include interest, attorney fees, or costs and disbursements. But a party may now make a total-obligation offer to avoid any ambiguity.

There has also been the question whether a plaintiff-offeree should be able to recover attorney fees after the offer was made if he or she ultimately recovers something less than the amount of the offer. The new rule says that a plaintiff-offeree may still collect attorney fees if he or she prevails on the merits but recovers less than the amount offered.

The rule now includes an even greater incentive for defendants to accept Rule 68 offers from plaintiffs. A defendant-offeree who rejects an offer of judgment must now pay double the plaintiff’s costs and disbursements if he or she ultimately loses the Rule 68 wager. Costs and disbursements under the rule, however, are those dating from the offer, giving parties an incentive to offer early.

The new rule includes some new procedural requirements, as well. A Rule 68 offer must explicitly reference the rule in order to be eliminate “accidental” Rule 68 offers. And a party wishing to make a total-obligation offer must explicitly call its offer a “total-obligation offer” to fall within that provision of the rule.

Confused yet? Rule 68 is a rather complicated bit of legal procedure, but it does give parties an incentive to come up with a fair offer, lay it all out on the table, and see what happens. It is a powerful strategic option, and the new rule appears to address some of the main reasons why the old rule was rarely used, so that more litigators may be offering and receiving Rule 68 offers in the future.


Get Lawyerist in Your Inbox, Daily

Current Articles
Current Lab Discussions
  • Thank you for writing this article. However, I am confused by this article. First, it is my understanding under the new and old Rule 68 that the offeror (offer giver) faces no risk in making an offer of judgment. Regardless of the outcome of the case, he/she cannot be forced to pay the other side’s costs and disbursements. The only person that can be harmed by an Offer of Judgment is the offeree (offer receiver), and only if they ignore or reject the offer.

    Can you tell me where you find that a Defendant must pay double the costs and disbursements after rejecting an offer and suffering a greater judgment or verdict? I cannot find that in the new rule.

    If you have time, please tell me whether I am right or why I am wrong. Thanks!

  • Sam Glover

    Rule 68.03(b)(2): “If the offeror is a plaintiff, and the relief awarded is less favorable to the defendant-offeree than the offer, then defendant-offeree must pay, in addition to the costs and disbursements to which the plaintiff-offeror is entitled under Rule 54.05, an amount equal to the plaintiff-offeror’s costs and disbursements incurred after service of the offer.”

    I think they made the text of the rule confusing as heck, but I read the above to mean doubled costs.