 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Davila v. Nickell10/26/2005
od Faith Settlement
The Louies next contend the court erred in determining a settlement between Barraza and Henry Kuiper and Kuiper Insurance, Inc. (collectively Kuiper) was a good faith settlement under Code of Civil Procedure sections 877 and 877.6. We find the contention to be without merit.
A. Factual Background
In his third amended complaint, Barraza asserted negligence and fraud claims against Kuiper, an insurance agent for the Joadd defendants. In the negligence cause of action, Barraza alleged that Kuiper breached a duty of care by issuing a "false written confirmation of [insurance] coverage" and by then claiming there was no insurance coverage after the accident. In the fraud cause of action, Barraza alleged Kuiper made false representations to the Joadd defendants regarding their insurance coverage. Barraza alleged that Kuiper's negligent and fraudulent conduct caused him to "suffer[ ] the serious injuries and damages as herein alleged [the injuries from the fall from the roof]." The Joadd defendants asserted a cross-complaint against Kuiper. There is no indication in the appellate record that the Louies also filed a cross-complaint.
On the first day of trial, the parties stipulated that Barraza would litigate his claims against Kuiper in a bifurcated proceeding after the co-defendants' case. As part of this stipulation, the Joadd defendants agreed to dismiss their cross-complaint against Kuiper without prejudice.
After the jury returned its approximately $14 million compensatory and punitive damage verdicts, Kuiper and plaintiffs settled Barraza's claim for $500,000 (Kuiper's insurance policy limits). The settlement was contingent on the court finding the offer was made in good faith under Code of Civil Procedure sections 877 and 877.6, thus barring any contribution or indemnity claims for comparative negligence or fault against Kuiper by the other defendants. The parties further agreed the judgment against the other defendants would be reduced by the $500,000 settlement amount.
All the defendants stipulated that the settlement was in good faith, except the Louies. The Louies argued that Code of Civil Procedure sections 877 and 877.6 were inapplicable because Kuiper and the Louies were not "'joint tortfeasors'" and because the settlement was reached after the jury returned its verdict in the main case. The Louies additionally argued that the settlement was not in good faith because Kuiper should bear a larger percentage of the monetary damages because Kuiper was the "lynchpin" in the large monetary verdict against the Louies, i.e., "if worker's compensation insurance would have been in existence as represented by Kuiper, laintiffs would have been barred from maintaining their tort actions . . . [against the Louies]."
Kuiper countered that the settlement amount of $500,000 reflected more than his fair share of the total judgment, given that Barraza would be unable to prove a duty was owed to him or that Kuiper's allegedly wrongful conduct in issuing the insurance certificate caused Barraza's fall and resulting injuries. Kuiper also argued that Barraza's action against Kuiper (filed more than five years after the accident) was barred by the statute of limitations (Kuiper was not a party to the October 1997 settlement agreement).
After considering the papers and the parties' oral arguments, the court granted Kuiper's motion, ordering that: (1) the proposed settlement was "in good faith"; (2) " ll other joint tortfeasor and parties are barred from maintaining any claim(s) against [Kuiper] for equitable indemnity, comparative contribution, total or partial indemnity based upon comparative negligence or co
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|