How have courts interpreted section 998 of the California Vehicle Accident Compensation Act when a plaintiff has made a "token or nominal" offer of settlement?

"To effectuate the purpose of the statute, a section 998 offer must be made in good faith to be valid. (Wear v. Calderon (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 818, 821 [].) Good faith requires that the pretrial offer of settlement be 'realistically reasonable under the circumstances of the particular case. Normally, therefore, a token or nominal offer will not satisfy this good faith requirement, . . .' (Id. at p. 821.) The offer 'must carry with it some reasonable prospect of acceptance. [Citation.]' (Elrod v. Oregon Cummins Diesel, Inc. (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 692, 698 (Elrod).) One having no expectation that his or her offer will be accepted will not be allowed to benefit from a no-risk offer made for the sole purpose of later recovering large expert witness fees. (Pineda v. Los Angeles Turf Club, Inc. (1980) 112 Cal.App.3d 53, 63 [].)" (Jones v. Dumrichob, supra, 63 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1262-1263.)