Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co.
194 Cal. App. 4th 939
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- SDGE appeals an order dismissing its cross-complaint for equitable indemnity against Maio, Zeiger, and Nantasket Court Condominium Association after a $25,000 Cahill settlement was deemed made in good faith under CCP 877.6.
- Cahill sustained serious injuries on September 3, 2008 when his pole contacted a SDGE 12,000-volt line adjacent to the Property roof; Cahill sued SDGE for negligence per se for proximity of the line to the roof.
- In April 2009 Cahill settled with Owners for $25,000 in exchange for a release of all claims against Owners; SDGE then asserted cross-claims for apportionment of fault and equitable indemnity against Owners.
- Owners and Cahill moved under CCP 877.6 to determine whether the settlement was made in good faith and to dismiss SDGE’s cross-claims; a January 29, 2010 written order granted the motion and dismissed these cross-claims with prejudice.
- SDGE challenged the good faith determination on appeal, and Owners moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing exclusive review by a writ under CCP 877.6(e); the court ultimately affirmed the good faith determination and denied the appeal in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether review of the good faith determination is available on appeal | SDGE contends § 877.6(e) is exclusive; § 906 allows review of intermediate orders on appeal. | Owners contend § 877.6(e) writ petition is the exclusive remedy; no postjudgment appeal available. | Permissive writ review allowed postjudgment appeal. |
| Whether the trial court properly applied Tech-Bilt factors to find good faith | SDGE argues the record shows no rational basis for good faith. | Owners contend discounting evidence and subjective factors support good faith. | Court did not abuse discretion; Tech-Bilt factors reasonably supported good faith. |
| Whether the $25,000 settlement was within the ballpark given potential liability | SDGE asserts the amount is grossly disproportionate to potential liability (tens of millions). | Owners argue April 2009 information justified a modest settlement given uncertain causation. | Settlement amount within ballpark for April 2009 information. |
| Whether the trial court properly considered potential liability of Owners relative to SDGE | SDGE asserts Owners' liability was not remote and should influence proportionate share. | Owners argue potential liability to Cahill was remote; any SDGE indemnity would depend on lack of causation. | Court affirmed that Owners' liability was sufficiently remote to justify good faith finding. |
| Whether Owners’ corporate status affected standing to participate in the appeal | SDGE contends suspension of Association’s corporate status impaired participation. | FTB revivor and SOS status restored standing retroactively; Association had capacity to participate. | Association deemed active and in good standing during the action; proper to participate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-C Clyde & Associates, 38 Cal.3d 488 (Cal. 1985) (nonexclusive factors for good faith settlement; court should use experience and discretion)
- Maryland Casualty Co. v. Andreini & Co., 81 Cal.App.4th 1413 (Cal. App. Dist. 2, 2000) (postjudgment review of good faith determination may be allowed; legislative history analyzed)
- Wilshire Ins. Co. v. Tuff Boy Holding, Inc., 86 Cal.App.4th 627 (Cal. App. Dist. 2, 2001) (good faith determination reviewable on appeal where writ petition denied; legislative history discussed)
- Main Fiber Products, Inc. v. Morgan & Franz Ins. Agency, 73 Cal.App.4th 1130 (Cal. App. Dist. 4, 1999) (877.6(e) writ review exclusive for challenges to good faith determinations; not reviewable on final judgment)
- O’Hearn v. Hillcrest Gym & Fitness Center, Inc., 115 Cal.App.4th 491 (Cal. App. Dist. 4, 2004) (endorses writ review as the route to challenge good faith determinations; exceptions noted)
- Bay Development, Ltd. v. Superior Court, 50 Cal.3d 1012 (Cal. 1990) (promotes settlement versus fair apportionment balance in tortfeasor liability)
- Long Beach Memorial Medical Center v. Superior Court, 172 Cal.App.4th 865 (Cal. App. Dist. 2, 2009) (discusses damages and settlement relation for good faith analysis)
- Greshko v. County of Los Angeles, 194 Cal.App.3d 822 (Cal. App. Dist. 2, 1987) (causation and settlement considerations in good faith analysis cited)