The Motion by Cross-Defendant, Little Murder Production Company, LLC (hereafter “Little Murder”), for Summary Judgment or Alternatively, for Summary Adjudication of Issues is DENIED. Cross-Defendant has not established that it is entitled to judgment on the cross-claims asserted by TM Motion Picture Equipment Rentals, Inc. (hereafter, “TM”). Triable issues of material fact remain.

Little Murder’s objections to the declaration of Tom May are all overruled as they are without merit. Little Murder’s objections to TM’s “Responses to Little Murder’s Separate Statement” are not evidentiary objections, and as such no ruling is issued on its merits. Objections must be made to specific quoted evidence. Cal Rules of Court 3.1354(b).

Little Murder’s contention that it did not rent the liftgate/trailer from TM is controverted by TM’s evidence at Ex. C, which reflects a lease agreement signed by TM and Little Murder. Fact 8 remains in dispute.

Little Murder relies on John May’s (TM) deposition testimony that “Mid-America” rented the equipment to Little Murder, however, the existence of a signed agreement between TM and Little Murder creates a triable issue. Little Murder then argues that there is no consideration for this agreement since Little Murder actually paid someone else (Mid America) for the equipment. The statement is internally inconsistent; there is consideration to support the agreement since Little Murder admits it paid the consideration. Further, there is no authority to support the proposition that if Little Murder pays a third party for the rental of equipment, Little Murder has no legal obligations under the contract it signed. Therefore, Fact 9, purporting to show that Little Murder actually paid Mid America, and not TM is irrelevant.

TM also submits a copy of the Indemnity Agreement between TM and Little Murder. TM’s Ex. D. Little Murder expressly agreed to indemnify and hold TM harmless from “all claims, actions, causes of action, etc. It is signed by Little Murder and TM. TM’s Ex. D. Accordingly, the claim for express indemnity cannot be adjudicated in Little Murder’s favor.

The scope of the Release signed by Tom May and whether it released all claims or just property damage claims remains a triable issue. There is no dispute that Tom May signed a Release of all claims and received a check. UF 20-22. Whether TM intended to release Little Murder from liability for all claims depends on the language of the release and the intent of the parties; the parties’ intent is ordinarily a question of fact. Grebe v. McDaniel, 265 Cal. App. 2d 901, 903 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 1968).

The release does include an agreement to release and discharge Little Murder “from any and all claims, actions, causes of action, which the undersigned now has or have or which may hereafter accrue on account of or in any way growing out of any and all known and unknown, foreseen and unforeseen, property damage to 1985 trailer-mobile 2 axle 45 grip trailer lift gate …” Little Murder’s Ex. B, Ex. 3 thereto. The express reference to property damage supports TM’s construction that the release was limited.

The release further states that the “Production Co./Insured and Claimant shall not be estopped or otherwise barred from asserting, and expressly reserve the right to assert any claim or cause of action that does not involve this settlement, such party or parties may have against each other.” Id.

Civ Code § 1641 states that “[t]he whole of a contract is to be taken together, so as to give effect to every part, if reasonably practicable, each clause helping to interpret the other.” Accordingly, Little Murder has not established that TM agreed to release its right to indemnity for Plaintiff’s personal injury claims. That issue remains a triable issue of fact.

Because Little Murder did sign a separate Indemnity Agreement with TM agreeing to “defend, indemnify and hold TM harmless,” Worker’s Compensation exclusivity does not apply. TM’s Ex. D. Under Labor Code § 3864, Little Murder (the employer) is not obligated to hold a third person (TM) harmless in the absence of a written agreement to do so signed before the injury. Plaintiff was injured on 9/12/09. UF 1. The Indemnity Agreement was signed by Little Murder on 8/15/09. TM’s Ex. D.

“If an action as provided in this chapter prosecuted by the employee [Plaintiff], the employer, or both jointly against the third person results in judgment against such third person [TM], or settlement by such third person, the employer [Little Murder] shall have no liability to reimburse or hold such third person harmless on such judgment or settlement in absence of a written agreement so to do executed prior to the injury.” Cal Lab Code § 3864