(a) If the offer of a party other than the claimant is not accepted, and the claimant obtains a judgment, or in the case of a claim for uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits, a verdict (molded to reflect comparative negligence, if any) that is favorable to the offeror as defined by this rule, the offeror shall be allowed, in addition to costs of suit, the allowances as prescribed by R. 4:58-2.
Rule 4:58-3.Consequences of Non-Acceptance of Offer of Party Not a Claimant
Last amended September 1, 2022 · Current through June 18, 2026 · Last verified July 7, 2026
In one sentenceRule 4:58-3 lets a defendant or other non-claimant recover the same offer-of-judgment allowances when the claimant rejects the defense offer and then recovers no more than 80% of it, subject to exceptions for dismissed claims, no-cause verdicts, nominal damages, and undue hardship.
Full Text of Rule 4:58-3
(b) A favorable determination qualifying for allowances under this rule is a judgment or in the case of a claim for uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits, a verdict (molded to reflect comparative negligence, if any) in an amount, excluding allowable prejudgment interest and counsel fees, that is 80% of the offer or less.
(c) No allowances shall be granted if (1) the claimant’s claim is dismissed, (2) a no-cause verdict is returned, (3) only nominal damages are awarded, (4) a fee allowance would conflict with the policies underlying a fee-shifting statute or rule of court, or (5) an allowance would impose undue hardship or otherwise result in unfairness to the offeree. If, however, undue hardship can be eliminated by reducing the allowance to a lower sum, the court shall reduce the amount of the allowance accordingly. The burden is on the offeree to establish the offeree’s claim of undue hardship or lack of fairness.
Amendment History
New Jersey publishes each rule’s amendment record in a “History” note beneath the rule. It is reproduced verbatim below; the “R.R.” citations refer to the former Revised Rules numbering the current rules replaced.
Source R.R. 4:73; amended July 13, 1994 to be effective September 1, 1994; amended July 5, 2000 to be effective September 5, 2000; amended July 28, 2004 to be effective September 1, 2004; text allocated into paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and paragraphs (a), (b), (c) amended July 27, 2006 to be effective September 1, 2006; paragraphs (a) and (b) amended August 1, 2016 to be effective September 1, 2016; paragraphs (a), (b), (c) amended August 5, 2022 to be effective September 1, 2022.
Plain-English Summary
The offer-of-judgment mechanism cuts both ways. When a party other than the claimant makes an offer that goes unaccepted, and the claimant then obtains a judgment or verdict of 80% or less of that offer, the offeror is entitled to the same allowances Rule 4:58-2 gives a successful claimant.
That entitlement has real limits, though: no allowances follow if the claimant's case was dismissed, the jury returned a no-cause verdict, only nominal damages were awarded, a fee award would conflict with a fee-shifting statute or rule, or the award would impose undue hardship or unfairness on the offeree — again with the offeree carrying the burden to prove it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a defendant recover fees under New Jersey's offer-of-judgment rule?
Yes, if the claimant rejects the defendant's offer and then recovers a judgment or verdict that is 80% or less of that offer.
Are there situations where a defendant can't recover allowances even after beating its own offer?
Yes — if the claimant's claim was dismissed, a no-cause verdict was returned, only nominal damages were awarded, the fee would conflict with a fee-shifting statute or rule, or it would cause undue hardship.
Source & verification. The rule text and amendment history are reproduced verbatim from the
official New Jersey Rules of Court (N.J. Ct. R. 4:58-3). Prescribed by the Supreme Court of New Jersey (N.J. Const. art. VI, § 2, ¶ 3). The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified July 7, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: defense offer of judgment80 percent rule