Motion by AIG Specialty Insurance Company, Intervenor for Defendant and Cross-defendant Davis Brothers Framing, Inc., to Contest the Good Faith Settlement of Lexington Insurance Company on behalf of Pacific Sales of Southern California:
The motion is denied.
Opposition papers adequately address the Tech-Bilt factors here, as noted below.
The Reply papers ignore the declaration of expert Mr. Neal and comments of that expert.? Reply papers also ignore the responding party indication that Pacific Sales is no longer in business, and is a suspended corporation, with limited, if any, scope-of-work implicated in the preliminary defect list presented by plaintiff.
Repeated emphasis of moving party on the preliminary total damage estimate of plaintiff is close to meaningless in that context.? Also, notably, moving party offers no evidence to dispute or contradict those Opposition paper comments.
Therefore, moving party has not met the burden, which has shifted to it, to demonstrate that this settlement grossly underpays the potential proportionate share of the liability of Pacific Sales, in this matter, or is ?out-of-the-ballpark?, or was reached in bad faith, as opposed to reasonably reached based on facts available to settling parties at the point in time when the settlement was reached.? [See City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal App 3d 1251, 1262, and CCP ? 877.6 (d).]
Generally, the law favors settlements, pursuant to Staumbaugh v. Superior Court (1976) 62 Cal App 3d 231 – and this settlement is ?within the ballpark?, ?not grossly disproportionate?, and ?within the reasonable range of the settling tortfeasors? proportional share of comparative limited or nearly 0% liability for plaintiff?s injuries, in this context, per the Tech-Bilt, Inc. vs. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499-500 ?factors? ? where said more-than-de minimis settlement was reached after arms-length negotiations between experienced counsel, with mediation assistance of Mr. Kurland ? with responding party just wanting to ?buy its peace?, here.
There is no evidence of fraud or collusion, here.
The court needs a proposed Order from responding party that follows C.C.P.? ? 877.6 (c) language.
Responding Party shall give notice and prepare the appropriate Order.
- Motion by AIG Specialty Insurance Company, Intervenor for Defendant and Cross-defendant Davis Brothers Framing, Inc. to Contest the Good Faith Settlement of Davey Roofing, Inc.:
The motion by Intervenor AIG Specialty Insurance Company is denied.
The Opposition papers of Davey Roofing, Inc., adequately address theTech-Bilt factors, here, as noted below.
The Reply papers ignore the declaration of expert Mr. Neal [Newport Coast Consulting, Inc.], and comments of that expert.? The Reply papers also ignore the responding party indication that Davey Roofing is no longer in business with limited, if any, scope-of-work implicated in the preliminary defect list presented by plaintiff.? Repeated emphasis of moving party on the preliminary total damage estimate of plaintiff is close to meaningless in that context.? Also, notably, moving party offers no evidence to dispute or contradict those Opposition paper comments.
Therefore, moving party has not met the burden which has shifted to AIG to demonstrate that this settlement grossly underpays the potential proportionate share of the liability of Davey Roofing, in this matter, or is ?out-of-the-ballpark?, or was reached in bad faith, as opposed to reasonably reached based on facts available to settling parties at the point in time when the settlement was reached.? [SeeCity of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal App 3d 1251, 1262, and CCP ? 877.6 (d).]
Generally, the law favors settlements, pursuant to? Staumbaugh v. Superior Court (1976) 62 Cal App 3d 231 – and this settlement is ?within the ballpark?, ?not grossly disproportionate?, and ?within the reasonable range of the settling tortfeasors? proportional share of comparative limited or close to 0% liability for plaintiff?s injuries, in this context, pursuant to? the Tech-Bilt, Inc. vs. Woodward-Clyde & Associates(1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499-500 ?factors? ? where said more-than-de minimis settlement was reached after arms-length negotiations between experienced counsel, with mediation assistance of Mr. Kurland ? with responding party just wanting to ?buy its peace?, here (avoid further direct defense costs).
There is no evidence of fraud or collusion, here.
Counsel for Davey Roofing, Inc., shall give Notice and prepare the appropriate Order.
- Motion by AIG Specialty Insurance Company, Intervenor for Defendant and Cross-defendant Davis Brothers Framing, Inc. to Contest the Good Faith Settlement of Clear View Windows & Doors, Inc.:
The motion by Intervenor AIG Specialty Insurance Company is denied.
The Opposition papers of Clear View Windows & Doors, Inc., adequately address the Tech-Bilt factors, here, as noted below.
The Reply papers ignore the declaration of expert Mr. Neal [Newport Coast Consulting, Inc.], and comments of that expert.? The Reply papers also ignore the responding party indication that Clear View Windows & Doors, Inc., has very limited, if any, of its scope-of-work implicated in the preliminary defect list presented by plaintiff.? Repeated emphasis of moving party on the preliminary total damage estimate of plaintiff is close to meaningless in that context.? Also, notably, moving party offers no evidence to dispute or contradict those Opposition paper comments.
Therefore, moving party has not met the burden which has shifted to AIG to demonstrate that this settlement grossly underpays the potential proportionate share of the liability of Clear View Windows & Doors, Inc., in this matter, or is ?out-of-the-ballpark?, or was reached in bad faith, as opposed to reasonably reached based on facts available to settling parties at the point in time when the settlement was reached.? [See City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal App 3d 1251, 1262, and CCP ? 877.6 (d).]
Generally, the law favors settlements, pursuant to? Staumbaugh v. Superior Court (1976) 62 Cal App 3d 231 – and this settlement is ?within the ballpark?, ?not grossly disproportionate?, and ?within the reasonable range of the settling tortfeasors? proportional share of comparative limited or close to 0% liability for plaintiff?s injuries, in this context, pursuant to? the Tech-Bilt, Inc. vs. Woodward-Clyde & Associates(1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499-500 ?factors? ? where said more-than-de minimis settlement was reached after arms-length negotiations between experienced counsel, with mediation assistance of Mr. Kurland ? with responding party just wanting to ?buy its peace?, here (avoid further direct defense costs).
There is no evidence of fraud or collusion, here.
Counsel for Clear View Windows & Doors, Inc., shall give Notice and prepare the appropriate Order.