Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 24SMCV05584, Date: 2025-05-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV05584    Hearing Date: May 5, 2025    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Brewer v. Maximum Garage Doors and Gates, Case no. 24SMCV05584

Hearing date May 5, 2025

Defendant Maximum’s Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement

Plaintiff Brewer sues defendants Maximum Garage Doors & Gates and Cano, trustee of the Cano Family Trust, for premises liability, alleging head injuries/TBI when a rolling garage gate fell on her head. Cano filed an indemnity cross-complaint against Maximum. Maximum offered to settle with Brewer for its $1 million policy limits and moves for determination of good faith settlement. Cano opposes.

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §877.6 states the court may determine whether a settlement is in good faith, in its discretion. 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. The standards by which “good faith” is determined include: (1) rough approximation of plaintiffs’ total recovery and settlor’s proportionate liability; (2) amount paid in settlement; (3) recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than if found liable after trial; (4) the financial condition and insurance limits of settling defendant; and (5) collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of non-settling defendants; the party asserting lack of good faith has the burden of proof on that issue. Emphasis added. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §877.6(d); Tech-Bilt, supra, at 499; Mattco Forge, supra, at 1350, fn. 6.

Plaintiff agreed to Maximum’s tender of its $1 million policy limits in exchange for a release of all claims. Decl. Chavez paras. 2-3.

Cano argues the settlement is premature and does not represent a fair proportion of Maximum’s liability. Plaintiff claims $56,571.71 in medical expenses, monthly LOE of $15,000 and is still receiving treatment for head, neck, jaw and ear issues. Decl. Nguyen exh. A.

Proprerty owner Cano argues Maximum, which installed the gate, bears a proportionally greater amount of liability. Cano asserts plaintiff’s recovery will be far greater than $1 million. Per Tech-Bilt, supra, a settlement need only bear some proportionality to a defendant’s liability; such proportionality need not be exact. See Abbott Ford, Inc. v. Sup. Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 858, 863. Further, Tech-Bilt, supra, recognizes a settling party should pay less in settlement than it might after trial.

Cano argues Maximum fails to offer details as to its financial situation. The proposed settlement is for policy limits and resulted from arms-length negotiations. The burden is on Cano, as opposing party, to demonstrate lack of good faith. Cano offers no evidence that Maximum possesses additional assets, or that plaintiff would be willing to accept a lesser amount.

Cano argues allowing Maximum to settle will burden it with an unfair proportion of liability. This argument is unavailing. Should the matter proceed to trial, Cano would present evidence as to the scope of its liability. Plaintiff is assuming the risk that Maximum’s provable liability does not significantly exceed $1 million. Further, this is a policy limits settlement; there is no evidence Maximum has the ability to pay more than the policy limits. GRANTED.