Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 22SMCV02632, Date: 2025-05-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV02632    Hearing Date: May 1, 2025    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Phillips v. Bridges Properties, Case no. 22SMCV02632

Hearing date January 27, 2025 Continued to May 1, 2025

Defendant Perry’s Pool Services’ Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement

Plaintiff sues defendants Bridges Properties, LLC, Ron Abdulraheem Ali, Jamal Phillips, Carmen Phillips, Andrea McCoy, Pentair Water Pool and Spa, Inc. and Perry Parris dba Perry’s Pool Service (“Perry’s”) for wrongful death arising from alleged carbon monoxide poisoning, resulting in the death of plaintiff’s decedent. Plaintiffs allege a carbon monoxide leak from a Pentair pool heater installed by Perry’s and that the property where the death occurred had faulty carbon monoxide detectors.

Plaintiff and Perry’s entered into a policy limits settlement of $1,000,000; Perry’s moves for determination of good faith settlement. Defendants Bridges and Pentair oppose.

Per Code Civ. Proc. §877.6 the court may determine the settlement between defendant and plaintiff to be in good faith. The determination as to whether a settlement is in good faith is a matter left to the discretion of the trial court. Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Assoc. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 502; Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1349. Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d 499, sets forth the standards by which the “good faith” of a proposed settlement is determined. The factors include: (1) a rough approximation of plaintiffs’ total recovery and the settlor’s proportionate liability; (2) the amount paid in settlement; (3) the allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs; (4) a recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found liable after a trial; (5) the financial condition and insurance policy limits of the settling defendant; and (6) whether there is the existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of non-settling defendants. The party asserting the lack of good faith has the burden of proof on that issue. Code Civ. Proc. §877.6(d); Tech-Bilt, supra, at p. 499; Mattco Forge, supra, at 1350, fn. 6.

Bridges and Pentair argue Perry’s has not addressed the approximation of plaintiff’s damages or Perry’s proportionate liability. The claimed economic damages total $24,011.13. Decl. McIntyre para. 4. Bridges and Pentair argue the damages exceed the claimed economic damages due to non-economic damages. Bridges argues plaintiff made a §998 demand for $17,000,000, so Perry’s $1,000,000 is not sufficient. Perry’s argues no new evidence has been offered by Bridges or Pentair challenging the claimed economic damages. Opposing parties bear the burden of proof when arguing lack of good faith. Tech-Bilt, supra.

Bridges and Pentair assert Perry’s bears the greatest liability as the installer. Perry’s asserts Bridges admittedly failed to install carbon monoxide detectors in the home. The amount of a §998 demand does not establish the value of each defendant’s liability. Neither Bridges nor Pentair offers evidence establishing the potential damages at trial. Absent such evidence, and the risks of proceeding to trial, the relatively limited economic damages and the fact that Perry’s is offering policy limits, the court finds the settlement to be made in good faith.

Bridges and Pentair argue Perry’s fails to disclose its financial condition per Tech-Bilt, supra. The settlement is for the policy limits. Per the Paris declaration, Perry’s has no substantial financial assets outside its policy and Paris’ sub-$30,000 retirement account. See Decl. Paris paras. 3-4. 

Though the a copy of the proposed settlement is not attached, such is not required. See Alcal Roofing & Insulation v. Superior Court (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1121, 1127. Perry’s provided the essential terms of the settlement.

Pentair argues the motion should be denied because it was added to the case 11/20/24 and intends to file an MSJ. To the extent Pentair is new to the case, it points to no specific evidence it would need to adduce or discovery it would seek to complete in order to oppose this motion. Further, it cites no legal authority that such is a reason for the court to deny the motion.

Given the Tech-Bilt factors, including Perry’s financial condition and policy limits, and the reasoning stated above, the motion is GRANTED.