Judge Serena R. Murillo, Case 20STCV47113 2023-01-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 20STCV47113, Date: 2023-01-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV47113 Hearing Date: January 13, 2023 Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Defendant Kelli Lee Miller’s Motion to Challenge Nam Yoong Yoon’s Application for Good Faith Settlement Determination is DENIED. The application for determination of good faith settlement between Plaintiff Jong Suk Choi and Defendant Yoon is GRANTED.

Legal Standard

A plaintiff may settle with one of several joint tortfeasors or co-obligors on a contract without releasing the others. Provided it is in “good faith,” the settlement discharges the settling defendant from liability for equitable contribution or comparative indemnity but¿not¿for contractual indemnity. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 877(a)–(b).)

In order to determine whether the settlement was made in good faith under CCP section 877.6, the Court applies the following factors identified by the California Supreme Court in Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488 to determine whether the settlement amount is “in the ballpark” of the settling party’s share of liability for the injuries:

1) a rough approximation of the plaintiff's total recovery;

2) an approximation of the settling party's share of the liability;

3) recognition that a settling party should pay less in settlement than if found liable after a trial;

4) the allocation of the settlement proceeds among plaintiffs;

5) the settling party's financial condition and insurance policy limits;

6) evidence that the plaintiff and the settling party acted with an intent to make the non-settling parties pay more than their fair share (considered fraud and collusion under Tech-Bilt).

The "good faith" concept in CCP section 877.6 is a flexible principle imposing on reviewing courts the obligation to guard against the numerous ways in which the interests of nonsettling defendants may be unfairly prejudiced. (Rankin v. Curtis (1986) 183 Cal. App. 3d 939, 945.) Accordingly, under Tech-Bilt, the party asserting the lack of “good faith” may meet this burden by demonstrating that the settlement is so far "out of the ballpark" as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of the statute. (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal. 3d 488, 499-500.) Such a demonstration would establish that the proposed settlement was not a "settlement made in good faith" within the terms of section 877.6. (Id.)

The Supreme Court explained that CCP section 877.6 is designed to further two equitable policies:

1) encouragement of settlements; and

2) equitable allocation of costs among joint tortfeasors.

(Id.)

Those policies would be not be served by an approach which emphasizes one to the virtual exclusion of the other. (Id.) Accordingly, a settlement will not be found in good faith unless the amount is reasonable in light of the settling tortfeasor's proportionate share of liability. (Std. Pac. of San Diego v. A. A. Baxter Corp. (1986) 176 Cal. App. 3d 577, 589.)

“The party asserting the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that issue.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (d).)

Discussion

Defendants Yoon’s application provides:

· Plaintiff Choi has settled with Defendant Yoon for Yoon’s insurance policy limits of $200,000. (Balatero Decl., ¶ 19; Exh. B.);

· At the time of the collision, Defendant Yoon had an automobile liability insurance policy with GEICO with bodily injury limits of $100,000.00 per person/$300,000.00 per occurrence and an automobile liability insurance policy with Farmers Insurance with bodily injury limits of $100,000.00 per person/$300,000.00 per occurrence, as well as coverage through Plaintiff Choi’s Progressive Insurance policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person/$30,000 per occurrence. (Id). As Plaintiff Choi is the named insured on the Progressive Insurance policy, the bodily injury are not available to him. (Id. ¶ 20.)

· Defendant has no other assets and the Geico, Farmers Insurance and Progressive Insurance policies are the only available insurance policies that cover the accident (Id., ¶ 21; Exh. C.).

Defendant Miller contests the determination of a good faith settlement, arguing that Defendant Yoon was the sole cause of the collision because he failed to yield to the right of way of Miller, who had no stop sign at the intersection where the collision occurred. Miller argues she attempted to avoid the collision but could not.

Miller argues that Defendant Yoon has not provided sufficient evidence that he does not have any assets other than his insurance policy.

In opposition, Defendant Yoon contends he paid the policy limits of his insurance and he is insolvent. Where a party is insolvent and tenders the entire policy limit, the other Tech-Bilt factors are overridden and the settlement should be determined to be entered in good faith. (County of Los Angeles v. Guerrero (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1149, 1158; Schmid v. Superior Court (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1244, 1249.) “We can think of no earthly good that would come from requiring defendant Schmid to remain the action...no evidence suggests that Schmid has any assets, or any prospect of acquiring assets, other than her insurance policy.” (Id., 1248-1249.) “And even where the claimant's damages are obviously great, and the liability therefor certain, a disproportionately low settlement figure is often reasonable in the case of a relatively insolvent, and uninsured, or underinsured, joint tortfeasor.” (Stambaugh v. Superior Court (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 231, 238.)

As provided above, Defendant Yoon sets forth evidence it has settled for its policy limits. Further, Defendant Yoon’s only income stems from minimal monthly Social Security payments of $1,012.82. (Yoon Decl., ¶ 5.) Defendant Yoon has no fixed place of residence and relies on his children for housing, financial support and goes back and forth between their houses. (Id., ¶ 6.) His monthly expenses surpass his Social Security payments. (Id., ¶ 7.) He has no personal property of significant value that may be used to contribute to settlement in this matter. (Id., ¶¶ 8-13.) Further, he has no interest in any valuable items of goods, or any expectancy to recover as a beneficiary under a will, trust or other such instrument, and he has no other insurance. (Id., ¶¶ 12-14.)

Accordingly, pursuant to Guerrero, supra 209 Cal.App.3d at 1158 and Schmid, supra 205 Cal.App.3d at 1249, the Court finds the settlement between Plaintiff Choi and Defendant Yoon was entered into in good faith.

Conclusion

Defendant’s Motion to Challenge Nam Yoong Yoon’s Application for Good Faith Settlement Determination is DENIED. The application for determination of good faith settlement between Plaintiff Jong Suk Choi and Defendant Yoon is GRANTED.

The¿Court orders that any joint¿tortfeasor¿or co-obligor to this action is hereby barred from initiating or maintaining any claims against¿Defendant Nam Yoong Yoon for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault in causing harm to Plaintiff Jong Suk Choi.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.