CIV536248 IBRAHIM MATAR, ET AL. VS. GENESIS BUILDERS, ET AL.

IBRAHIM “ABE” MATAR ROBERT D. FINKLE JEAN-PAUL LARRIBEROT PRO/PER

MOTION FOR GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

 GRANTED. For the reasons that follow, the unopposed Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement brought by defendant Clifford Bechtel and Associates, Inc. is GRANTED.

 This is a construction defect action. The facts surrounding the defect involve a “sump pump” in the basement of Plaintiffs’ home. Allegedly, the general contractor (defendant Peter Yi Tier Sun and his company defendant Genesis Builders Custom Homes, Inc.) did some work on the home about three years prior to the discovery of water intrusion. That discovery allegedly occurred in December 2012, when Plaintiffs discovered flooding in their basement.

 As typical in construction defect cases, multiple party defendants were sued. Among them, the Plaintiff homeowners sued Clifford Bechtel and Associates, Inc., an engineering firm, for alleged professional errors & omissions in the grading and drainage design. They have reached a separate settlement and now move for a determination that that settlement was reached in good faith under C.C.P. § 877.6.

 The Court has already reviewed and approved another separate settlement by Craft Builders who installed hardwood floors, and as a result is familiar with the overall construction case. The Court also notes its over 45 years’ experience in construction cases, 33 years in civil trial practice and over 12 years as a Judge. In law practice, the Court represented plaintiff homeowners, defendant developer/general contractors, and also defendant architects and engineers. The Court has often conducted settlement conferences in construction defect cases, and had prior experience in law practice as a claims counsel for design professionals’ insurance carriers in evaluating claims as to liability risk and reasonable upside value if brought to trial.

 In this matter, the settling party Bechtel’s professional services agreement capped liability exposure at $50,000. So, the proposed settlement at $35,000 here represents 70% of the total risk as established by agreement of the parties. The Court would add that the $35,000 range is more likely than not in the area of what it would cost to defend the case at jury trial.

 Another factor here is that the moving papers include supporting declarations that the causes of the basement flooding issues are not design-related, but are primarily attributable to defective construction in the field. During discovery, site inspections and sub-contractors’ depositions have provided evidence that the flooding occurred due to compromised waterproofing and/or failure of the sump pump system that was improperly installed or maintained.

 The Court also notes that the settlement reached is consistent with recommendations of a well-regarded very experience construction defect case mediator Robert Bellagamba, Esq. There is no issue of collusion or deceit in connection with arriving at the settlement.

 Also, something that weighs in favor of a good faith approval here is the fact that none of the non-settling defendants oppose the present motion on the good faith issue. See City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261.

 In the Court’s opinion, and I so find, this proposed settlement is well “within the ballpark” of Bechtel and Associates’ liability exposure, and this settlement satisfies all of the elements required for a good faith determination that were set out in the seminal case of Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499.

 If the Motion remains uncontested at the time of Hearing, the Court intends to sign-off on the proposed Order finding this settlement to be in good faith.