 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Davila v. Nickell10/26/2005
mparative fault"; and (3) " ll pending cross-complaints against [Kuiper] are hereby dismissed . . . in accordance with [Code of Civil Procedure section] 877.6." (Emphasis omitted.)
B. Analysis
A court's determination of a good faith settlement between a plaintiff and one of several alleged joint tortfeasors discharges the settling defendant from liability to the non-settling defendants for equitable contribution or comparative indemnity. "Any party to an action in which it is alleged that two or more parties are joint tortfeasors or co-obligors on a contract debt shall be entitled to a hearing on the issue of the good faith of a settlement entered into by the plaintiff . . . and one or more alleged tortfeasors or co-obligors. . . . " (Code Civ. Proc, § 877.6, subd. (a)(1).) "A determination by the court that the settlement was made in good faith shall bar any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor or co-obligor for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault." (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (c).) A good faith finding also reduces the claims against the non-settling defendants in the amount stipulated by the settlement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 877, subd. (a).)
1. Alleged Joint Tortfeasor
The Louies first argue the good faith settlement procedures were inapplicable because Kuiper was not a "joint tortfeasor" within the meaning of the statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.) The Louies say that "Kuiper's misconduct did not proximately cause the plaintiffs' injuries. He did nothing to cause Barraza and Davila to fall. Therefore, Kuiper is not a joint tortfeasor and [Code of Civil Procedure section] 877.6 does not apply."
We agree it would have been exceedingly difficult for Barraza to have established the causation and duty elements in his negligence and fraud claims against Kuiper. Barraza alleged that Kuiper's act of providing the false insurance certificate enabled the Joadd defendants to obtain building permits from the city, which allowed construction to begin, causing Davila and Barraza to be on the Sun Villa apartment roof, resulting in their fall. Given the attenuated link between Kuiper's acts of certifying insurance coverage and Barraza's fall, it was unlikely Barraza would prevail on these claims.
However, the soundness of a plaintiff's theory of liability against an alleged tortfeasor does not affect the applicability of the good faith settlement statutes. Instead, it affects the court's determination as to whether the settlement amount reflected a good faith settlement. If Kuiper were to be found liable to Barraza on the theories asserted in his complaint, this would make Kuiper jointly and severally liable for Barraza's injuries, i.e., Kuiper allegedly put the events in motion to cause Barraza's personal injuries. Thus, Kuiper was an "alleged" joint tortfeasor.
Code of Civil Procedure section 877 applies to a settlement between the plaintiff and "one or more of a number of tortfeasors claimed to be liable for the same tort . . . ." (Italics added.) Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 similarly applies when "it is alleged that two or more parties are joint tortfeasors or co-obligors . . . ." (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (a)(1), italics added.) "Read in context, the word 'alleged' in the statute's first sentence . . . acknowledges that the party need not be found liable in tort; allegations are sufficient." (Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1179, italics added.)
Despite this plain language, the Louies argue that a court mus
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.
|
|