top of page
Taking cases to trial in my opinion is the only way to know how to represent a person. Trying cases shows the other side and the Judges you're serious and you know what you're doing at a very deep level.
My level of experience was calculated over the last 17 years. I've tried 70+ jury trials and know how to put a case together to best tell the experiences of my clients.
Personal Injury Lawyer.
70+ Jury Trials.
Trained.
Organized.
Experienced.
Consult with Eric at
760.216.4941
Eric@GanciEsq.com
Eric Ganci, Esq.
Trial Lawyer
Class A Commercial Driver
Teacher Cross-Country on Trial Psychology
Professional Drummer


How do California Courts assess a “concealed danger” in a danger floor or negligent premises case, regarding Privette?
In December 2025, the California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6, decided Andrews v. Wagner, cited as 116 Cal.App.5th 766. The main issue was the Privette Doctrine. Privette is a particular legal argument when there is a danger premises, and where someone is hurt arguably by a contractor or subcontractor’s negligence. Citing Andrews, the law generally with Privette gives a “…strong presumption under California law that a hirer of an independent contractor delegat
Eric Ganci, Esq.
50 minutes ago4 min read


Beating Your CCP 998 May Not Be Enough — You May Have to Show It Was Reasonable When You Made It
Matthews v. Ryan, 118 Cal.App.5th 155 (filed 1/28/26) — Part 2 In Part 1 (see here), I discussed whether a 998 offer that conditions acceptance on the defendant's insurance carrier consenting is invalid. Spoiler: the Court said no, it's redundant, but not invalid. Now with Part 2 of Matthews v. Ryan: the reasonableness of a 998 offer. Before I get into the case, let’s do a quick review of Part I: Scenario: you serve a 998 at or below what you think the case is worth. Defendan
Eric Ganci, Esq.
May 223 min read


Can a 998 Offer Be Conditioned on the Defendant's Insurer's Consent?
This recent 2026 case Matthews v. Ryan (cited as 118 Cal.App.5th 155) poses an interesting question about CCP 998 offers and whether an offer that requires a condition to be met is invalid. Let me zoom out first to lay some foundation. Picture this: you serve a 998 on a defendant who is defended by an insurance carrier. You add a condition: "This offer is conditional upon defendant's insurance carrier consenting to defendant's acceptance of this offer." Defendant rejects.
Eric Ganci, Esq.
May 153 min read
Blog
bottom of page