On June 10, 2026, a Los Angeles County jury returned a $198.17 million verdict in the wrongful death case of Mark and Jacob Iskander — two brothers, ages 11 and 8, killed in a Westlake Village crosswalk in September 2020. The verdict against defendants Ryan Grossman and David Erickson is among the largest wrongful death awards in the United States in 2026. But the number itself is not the most consequential part of the ruling. The legal linchpin — the jury’s finding that both defendants were acting in concert — fundamentally restructures how damages are calculated, collected, and distributed. For families and forensic economists navigating similar cases, understanding how acting in concert wrongful death damages work is no longer optional. It is essential.
What the Iskander Verdict Actually Decided
The jury’s $198.17 million award broke into two legally distinct components. The first was $176 million in compensatory damages — entirely non-economic, covering lost companionship, parental guidance, and the emotional trauma suffered by Nancy Iskander and her surviving son Zachary, both of whom witnessed the deaths. Because Mark and Jacob were minors with no employment history, there was no lost earnings calculation included in the compensatory figure, a common feature in wrongful death cases involving children whose economic contributions lie entirely in an unknowable future.
The second component was $22.17 million in punitive damages, added during a separate second trial phase: $21 million against Grossman and $1.17 million against Erickson. Those figures were assessed individually, based on each defendant’s own culpability, conduct, and financial circumstances. The structure of those two phases — joint compensatory liability versus individual punitive assessment — is precisely where acting in concert wrongful death damages diverge from ordinary multi-defendant verdicts, and where families must recalibrate every practical expectation about recovery.
Grossman had already been convicted criminally in 2024 on two counts of second-degree murder, two counts of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence, and one count of hit-and-run, and was sentenced to 15 years to life. His conviction was affirmed on appeal on March 17, 2026, and the California Supreme Court denied review on the same day as the civil verdict — June 10, 2026. Erickson was never criminally charged but was found civilly negligent. A blood test administered approximately three hours after the crash showed Grossman at 0.08 percent BAC. Evidence also surfaced of a 2013 California Highway Patrol warning to Grossman about driving 90 miles per hour on the 101 freeway, establishing a prior pattern of reckless behavior.
How “Acting in Concert” Collapses Two Defendants Into One Liability Pool
In most multi-defendant civil cases in states that have reformed or abolished joint and several liability, each defendant pays only their proportionate share of the damages. If a jury finds Defendant A 70 percent at fault and Defendant B 30 percent at fault, the plaintiff can collect only 70 percent of the award from A and 30 percent from B. If one defendant is insolvent, the family absorbs that loss. This is the “several only” liability framework adopted in many jurisdictions after tort reform movements of the 1980s and 1990s. You can review how California’s comparative fault rules operate through California’s official legislative information portal.
The acting in concert doctrine is a recognized exception to that framework. When a jury finds that two or more defendants consciously agreed to pursue a common plan — here, a street race or coordinated speeding — and that common plan caused the harm, their individual fault percentages collapse into shared, joint liability for the full compensatory award. The Iskander jury found both defendants equally at fault and acting in concert. That combination means the full $176 million compensatory award is collectible from either defendant alone. The family does not need to chase two separate defendants for two separate shares. If one defendant has deeper pockets, the family can pursue the entire compensatory judgment from that defendant, who then retains a contribution claim against the other. This is the core mechanic of acting in concert wrongful death damages, and it is structurally transformative for collection strategy.
For families using a car accident settlement calculator to model expected recovery in a fatal multi-vehicle crash, the difference between a several-only outcome and a joint liability outcome can be the difference between recovering the full verdict and recovering a fraction of it — depending entirely on each defendant’s solvency.
Why Punitive Damages Are Calculated Differently — and What That Means for Forensic Economists
The acting in concert finding does not extend to punitive damages. Punitive damages are constitutionally required to be individually assessed, calibrated to each defendant’s own degree of malice, reprehensibility, financial condition, and post-incident conduct. In the Iskander case, the punitive phase produced $21 million against Grossman and $1.17 million against Erickson — a ratio of roughly 18:1, reflecting dramatically different levels of culpability and financial circumstances.
According to reporting on the trial proceedings, the disparity reflects several factors: Grossman was alleged to have concealed assets and showed little remorse; Erickson, while not criminally charged, was found to have continued reckless behavior after the crash and deleted messages relevant to the case. These individualized findings are why acting in concert wrongful death damages require two entirely separate financial investigations during the punitive phase — not one shared punitive calculation. Forensic economists and legal teams must conduct independent net worth analyses, examine post-incident conduct separately for each defendant, and present evidence under the heightened “clear and convincing” standard that applies in most states when establishing the malice or conscious disregard required to unlock punitive damages at all. Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute provides a thorough explanation of the constitutional standards governing punitive damage awards.
This bifurcated structure has direct implications for any wrongful death case involving multiple defendants in a reckless conduct scenario. The compensatory phase demands proof of coordinated action. The punitive phase demands individualized proof of each defendant’s state of mind and wealth. These are not the same investigation, and conflating them is a strategic error that can undermine the punitive award even when the compensatory award is secured.
The Liability Structure: A Data Comparison
| Damages Component | Defendant Grossman | Defendant Erickson | Joint/Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compensatory Damages (Total: $176M) | Jointly liable for full $176M | Jointly liable for full $176M | Yes — either defendant owes full amount |
| Punitive Damages | $21,000,000 | $1,170,000 | No — individually assessed |
| Basis for Punitive Assessment | Concealed assets, limited remorse (reported) | Post-crash reckless conduct, deleted messages (reported) | Separate financial investigation required |
| Criminal Liability | 2nd-degree murder conviction, 15 years to life | Not criminally charged | N/A — civil case independent |
| Acting in Concert Finding | Yes | Yes | Triggers full joint compensatory liability |
| Total Exposure (Compensatory + Punitive) | $176M + $21M = $197M | $176M + $1.17M = $177.17M | Family can pursue full $176M from either |
Source: Verdict figures from National Law Review and Panish Shea Boyle Ravipudi press release, June 10, 2026. Liability structure analysis based on California comparative fault doctrine and acting in concert exception principles.
What the “Acting in Concert” Exception Means in Non-California Jurisdictions
California is not unique in preserving the acting in concert exception to several-only liability. Arizona’s A.R.S. § 12-2506 explicitly carves out joint liability for defendants found to have acted in concert, even within a broader statutory framework that otherwise limits joint and several liability. The model policy framework advanced by the American Legislative Exchange Council similarly preserves the acting in concert carve-out in its tort reform template. This means the legal principle illustrated by the Iskander verdict applies across a wide range of jurisdictions — families do not need to be in California to benefit from it, nor are they automatically protected simply because their state has not abolished joint liability generally.
For families pursuing wrongful death claims arising from street racing, coordinated reckless driving, or any scenario where two or more defendants acted in a shared reckless enterprise, the acting in concert theory is available in most U.S. jurisdictions as a pathway to full joint compensatory recovery. The practical threshold — proving a conscious agreement to pursue a common dangerous plan — is demanding but not insurmountable when evidence of coordination, communication, or synchronized behavior is preserved. Cases involving deleted messages, as in the Iskander case, demonstrate both the value of that evidence and the consequences when it is destroyed.
Families evaluating claims that extend beyond a vehicle crash into other categories of coordinated negligence should also consult a personal injury settlement calculator to model baseline recovery scenarios before layering in the joint liability analysis specific to their jurisdiction.
Three Calculation Implications Every Family Must Understand
Implication 1: Solvency Strategy Changes Entirely
In a several-only case, the family’s attorney must pursue each defendant for their proportionate share, and an insolvent defendant creates an unrecoverable gap. In an acting in concert wrongful death damages case, the family can direct the entire compensatory enforcement effort at whichever defendant has collectible assets. This changes insurance coverage analysis, asset tracing priority, and settlement negotiation leverage from the first day of litigation.
Implication 2: Two Separate Punitive Damage Investigations Are Required
The compensatory joint pool is shared, but the punitive damages are not. Forensic economists and litigation teams must prepare two independent financial profiles — one per defendant — covering net worth, income, asset concealment indicators, and post-incident conduct. The $21 million versus $1.17 million punitive split in Iskander is a direct product of that individualized analysis. A unified punitive investigation that treats both defendants identically would be legally insufficient and strategically damaging.
Implication 3: The Malice Threshold Requires Elevated Proof
Unlocking the punitive phase in an acting in concert wrongful death damages case requires satisfying a higher evidentiary burden than the preponderance standard used for compensatory damages. Most states require clear and convincing evidence that each defendant acted with malice, oppression, or conscious disregard for the safety of others. The Iskander facts — a street race, prior CHP warning, post-crash reckless conduct, deleted communications — provided that foundation. Families in less factually egregious cases must assess realistically whether the malice threshold is achievable for each defendant independently, because failure on that element for one defendant does not affect the other’s punitive exposure. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s street racing data documents the frequency and lethality of this conduct nationally, which can support arguments about the recklessness of such behavior as a pattern.
Frequently Asked Questions About Acting in Concert Wrongful Death Damages
What does “acting in concert” mean in a wrongful death lawsuit?
Acting in concert means that two or more defendants consciously agreed to pursue a common plan or course of conduct — such as street racing or coordinated reckless driving — and that plan directly caused the victim’s death. When a jury makes this finding, it triggers joint liability for the full compensatory damages award, meaning the family can collect the entire compensatory amount from either defendant rather than only their individual percentage share. In the Iskander case, the jury found both Grossman and Erickson acted in concert during the September 2020 crash, which made both jointly liable for the full $176 million compensatory award.
How do acting in concert wrongful death damages differ from ordinary multi-defendant wrongful death cases?
In an ordinary multi-defendant wrongful death case under a several-only liability framework, each defendant pays only their proportionate fault share. If a defendant is insolvent, that share may be unrecoverable. In an acting in concert wrongful death damages case, the joint liability finding collapses the individual shares into one shared pool, making the full compensatory award collectible from whichever defendant has assets. This fundamentally changes the family’s collection strategy and shifts negotiating leverage toward the more solvent defendant. Punitive damages, however, remain individually assessed regardless of the acting in concert finding.
Are punitive damages also shared jointly in an acting in concert case?
No. Punitive damages are constitutionally required to be individually assessed, even when the compensatory award is subject to joint liability. Each defendant’s punitive exposure is determined separately based on their own degree of malice, reprehensibility, financial condition, and post-incident conduct. In the Iskander verdict, this produced $21 million in punitives against Grossman and only $1.17 million against Erickson — an 18:1 ratio — reflecting dramatically different individual culpability assessments. Families and their legal teams must conduct two entirely separate financial investigations to support individualized punitive damage claims in acting in concert wrongful death damages cases.
Does the acting in concert exception apply in states that have abolished joint and several liability?
Yes, in most states that have reformed or partially abolished joint and several liability, the acting in concert exception is explicitly preserved. Arizona’s A.R.S. § 12-2506 is a notable example, maintaining joint liability specifically for defendants who acted in concert even within a broader several-only framework. California preserves a similar exception. Families should not assume that their state’s tort reform statutes have eliminated this avenue for full joint compensatory recovery — the acting in concert carve-out is widely maintained precisely because coordinated wrongdoing is treated differently than independent concurrent negligence.
How does the acting in concert finding affect what a forensic economist must calculate in a wrongful death case?
The acting in concert finding restructures the forensic economist’s work in two significant ways. First, for compensatory damages, the economist calculates a single unified damages figure — lost companionship, parental guidance, emotional trauma, and any economic losses — knowing that the full amount is jointly recoverable from either defendant. Second, for the punitive phase, the economist must conduct two entirely separate net worth and financial condition analyses, one per defendant, because punitive damages are individually assessed. The Iskander case also illustrates a specific calculation feature common to child victim cases: with no employment history, the $176 million compensatory award contained no lost earnings component, focusing entirely on non-economic damages that require different valuation methodologies than adult victim wrongful death claims.
This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice; consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for guidance specific to your circumstances.
Related reading: Georgia SB 68 Seat Belt Negligence Settlement Calculator 2026: How Comparative Negligence Shifts Liability Risk When Defense Argues Non-Compliance
Related reading: Autonomous Vehicle Software Defects & Traumatic Brain Injury: Product Liability Over Driver Negligence In 2026
Margaret Whitfield is a Wrongful Death and Survivor Rights Advisor with extensive knowledge of personal injury law and settlement values across the United States. With years of experience analyzing wrongful death claims only (high value) cases, Margaret helps injury victims understand their legal rights and the potential value of their claims. Margaret is not an attorney and the information provided is for educational purposes only.