A jury award offset is a legal mechanism that reduces one defendant’s total liability when another defendant in the same case has already settled with the plaintiff. In July 2026, Judge Huey P. Cotton granted Scott Erickson, a former Los Angeles Dodger, a $14 million offset from the jury’s compensatory damages award in a wrongful death civil suit stemming from a September 2020 traffic collision. This offset represents the amount of a pretrial settlement that Rebecca Grossman had reached with the victims’ family, specifically Nancy Iskander (mother) and Zachary Iskander (surviving son).
The case highlights how offsetting can significantly alter the final financial burden on defendants when multiple parties share liability for the same damages. The collision occurred on September 29, 2020, when Grossman’s vehicle, traveling at approximately 80 mph in a 45 mph zone, struck brothers Mark and Jacob Iskander—ages 11 and 8—in a crosswalk. The family filed a wrongful death lawsuit in January 2021. The core legal question became how liability should be apportioned between Erickson and Grossman, especially given allegations that both had consumed cocktails before engaging in a speed contest that led to the fatal collision. The $14 million offset granted by Judge Cotton demonstrates how settlements between one defendant and the plaintiff can shield other defendants from bearing the full weight of a jury’s damages verdict.
Table of Contents
- What Does a Jury Award Offset Mean in Settlement Damages Cases?
- The Fatal Collision and Allegations of Reckless Conduct
- Joint Liability and the Basis for Offset in Multi-Defendant Cases
- Pretrial Settlements and Their Strategic Impact on Jury Verdicts
- Complications When Juries Award Less Than Settlements
- The Mechanics of Calculating and Applying Jury Offsets
- Implications for Defendants in Multi-Defendant Personal Injury Cases
What Does a Jury Award Offset Mean in Settlement Damages Cases?
A jury award offset is a reduction in one defendant’s liability based on payments already made by another defendant who bears joint responsibility for the same injury or loss. When a plaintiff settles with one liable party before trial, that settlement amount is typically credited against any judgment rendered against co-defendants. This prevents what courts consider an unjust enrichment to the plaintiff—receiving full compensation twice for the same harm. In the Erickson case, Grossman’s pretrial settlement with the Iskander family established a baseline compensation amount. When the jury subsequently awarded damages, Judge Cotton applied the offset principle by crediting Erickson’s portion of liability against the jury’s verdict.
The offset mechanism serves competing policy interests. On one hand, it protects defendants from paying for injuries their co-defendants have already compensated. On the other hand, it can reduce the incentive for early settlement because settling defendants receive no benefit—the offset simply reduces other defendants’ bills rather than lowering the settling defendant’s own costs. Courts apply offsetting rules differently depending on state law and whether comparative fault principles apply. In some jurisdictions, offsets are mandatory; in others, judges have discretion over whether and how to apply them. The Erickson case demonstrates a scenario where the offset was substantial enough to meaningfully affect the defendant’s final liability, despite a significant jury verdict in the underlying case.
The Fatal Collision and Allegations of Reckless Conduct
On September 29, 2020, a catastrophic collision on Triunfo Canyon Road claimed the lives of two young brothers. Grossman’s vehicle was traveling at approximately 80 mph in a 45 mph zone—nearly double the speed limit—when it struck Mark Iskander, 11, and Jacob Iskander, 8, who were in a crosswalk. The impact was fatal to both children. Their mother, Nancy Iskander, and surviving brother, Zachary Iskander, were profoundly affected by the loss. The family initiated legal action in January 2021, seeking compensation for their wrongful death claim against both Grossman and Erickson.
The lawsuit alleged that both Erickson and Grossman had consumed cocktails before engaging in a speed contest along the same road where the collision occurred. This allegation elevated the case beyond a simple traffic accident into a claim of deliberate recklessness. Speed contests—informal racing between drivers—carry heightened culpability in personal injury law because they represent voluntary assumption of extreme risk. The combination of alcohol consumption and speed racing created a narrative of deliberate indifference to public safety. Unlike a single moment of inattention or poor judgment, the allegations suggested sustained reckless behavior that directly resulted in the deaths of two children and devastation to their family.
Joint Liability and the Basis for Offset in Multi-Defendant Cases
The legal foundation for the offset granted to Erickson rests on the principle of joint liability—the concept that multiple defendants can bear concurrent responsibility for the same plaintiff’s injuries. When two or more defendants are found jointly liable, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the full amount of damages from any single defendant, or in portions from multiple defendants, but not to recover more than the total damages award. Grossman’s pretrial settlement with the Iskander family established that one source of liability had already compensated the victims for their losses to a specific amount. Judge Cotton’s decision to grant the $14 million offset reflected the court’s determination that Erickson and Grossman were jointly liable for the same damages—namely, the wrongful deaths of Mark and Jacob Iskander.
The offset reduced Erickson’s share of liability because the jury’s total damages award would have resulted in the plaintiff receiving that amount from the jury verdict on top of the settlement already paid by Grossman. The offset mechanism ensured that the Iskander family received compensation but not double recovery. However, this approach can create tension in cases where one defendant settles early (potentially at a reduced amount to avoid trial) while another defendant faces the full force of a jury’s verdict. Defendants who settle pay a price, but offsetting ensures they do not pay the entire price of the other defendants’ actions as well.
Pretrial Settlements and Their Strategic Impact on Jury Verdicts
Pretrial settlements in multi-defendant cases create complex strategic incentives. When Grossman settled with the Iskander family before trial, she negotiated an amount that reflected both liability exposure and settlement value. The settlement effectively took her case off the jury’s docket, leaving only Erickson’s liability to be decided. However, juries typically do not know settlement amounts when rendering verdicts—they decide damages based solely on the evidence and arguments presented during trial. This creates a scenario where the jury’s award can exceed or fall short of the settlement amount, and the offset mechanism adjusts accordingly.
In the Erickson case, the $14 million offset was calculated based on the pretrial settlement between Grossman and the victims’ family. This suggests the settlement amount was substantial enough to merit a credit of that magnitude against Erickson’s jury verdict. Strategic considerations affect settlement calculations: a defendant might settle for less than anticipated trial liability to remove uncertainty and avoid jury unpredictability, or might settle for more if trial risks appear severe. The Iskander family negotiated with Grossman independently of the jury process, then faced a separate verdict against Erickson. The offset ensures that the total compensation to the family does not exceed the jury’s assessed damages, but it also means that if the jury award is lower than the settlement, the settling defendant (Grossman) may have paid more than her proportional share.
Complications When Juries Award Less Than Settlements
A significant limitation of the offset mechanism emerges when jury awards fall below settlement amounts. If the jury had awarded damages less than $14 million in the Erickson case, Grossman would still owe her full settlement amount to the Iskander family while Erickson’s liability would be reduced or eliminated. This creates a disparity where one defendant bears a heavier burden than would be justified by comparative fault. Courts attempt to address this through various mechanisms—some jurisdictions allow for contribution claims among defendants, where a defendant who paid more than their fair share can seek reimbursement from co-defendants. However, contribution claims add layers of complexity and additional litigation.
Another complication arises when settling defendants disagree with the court’s offset calculation. The offset must accurately reflect the settlement amount paid and any conditions attached to the settlement. If a settlement included provisions beyond simple monetary payment—such as assumption of insurance claims or non-monetary covenants—courts must determine how these factors affect the offset. The Iskander family’s settlement with Grossman involved specific named parties (Nancy Iskander and Zachary Iskander) and presumably addressed the wrongful death of Mark and Jacob. When applying the offset to Erickson’s verdict, courts must ensure the offset applies proportionally to the same injuries and losses rather than creating a windfall for Erickson by offsetting against unrelated damages.
The Mechanics of Calculating and Applying Jury Offsets
Judge Cotton’s decision to grant exactly a $14 million offset suggests the settlement amount between Grossman and the Iskander family was $14 million or corresponded to that amount for offset purposes. The calculation involves identifying which damages the settlement covered and ensuring the offset applies only to those same damages. If the settlement covered compensatory damages for wrongful death but not separate claims for pain and suffering, the offset would apply only to the wrongful death award portion. The jury verdict against Erickson presumably included damages for the same categories of loss, allowing the offset to be applied dollar-for-dollar. The timing of the offset application is also significant.
Judge Cotton’s ruling dated July 18, 2026, came after the jury rendered its verdict but before final judgment. Offsets are typically applied during the post-verdict phase, when the court finalizes the judgment amount. This timing allows the court to evaluate the jury’s verdict against all known settlements and ensure the final judgment reflects proper offset calculations. If additional defendants or settlements emerged after the jury verdict, the offset calculation might need adjustment. In the Erickson case, the offset was clear and straightforward because only one significant settlement had occurred, making the offset calculation a direct credit against the jury award.
Implications for Defendants in Multi-Defendant Personal Injury Cases
The Erickson offset illustrates a critical reality for defendants in cases involving multiple liable parties: early settlement by co-defendants does not necessarily reduce your own exposure, and may increase it strategically. When Grossman chose to settle before trial, she removed herself from the jury’s consideration but also established a settlement baseline that could be offset against any verdict rendered. If Grossman’s settlement was based on a lower percentage of fault or liability than a jury later assigned, Erickson benefited from the offset; if Grossman’s settlement reflected a higher culpability finding than the jury assigned to Erickson, he still received the full offset benefit. The settlement decision by one defendant shapes the liability landscape for all defendants.
From a plaintiff’s perspective, offsetting means that the total compensation package is determined by the combination of settlements plus jury verdicts, with the offset preventing overcompensation. The Iskander family received compensation through Grossman’s settlement and would have received additional compensation through Erickson’s jury verdict, but the jury award was reduced by the offset. This structure theoretically aligns total compensation with the jury’s assessment of actual damages, but it can result in outcomes where early-settling defendants pay more than late-trial defendants if the settlement was generous and the jury verdict modest. In wrongful death cases like this one, where the injuries are devastating and irreparable, calculating proper compensation and applying offsets remains a significant challenge for courts attempting to balance fairness among defendants while ensuring families receive appropriate compensation.