Defendant Association Resource Center (“ARC”) hereby moves this Court for a good faith settlement determination pursuant to CCP 887.6.  the record reflects that ARC initially filed its Application for Good Faith Settlement Determination on May 28, 2014.  Thereafter, on June 20^th, 2014, Defendant Mechanics Bank (“Mechanics Bank”) filed a Request for Additional Information and Clarification regarding the financial condition of ARC and any potential insurance coverage for the pending dispute.  In response, ARC filed its Supplement to Application for Good Faith Settlement Determination on July 18, 2014.  Prior to filing its Opposition, Mechanics Bank took the deposition of the PMQ on ARC’s financial condition and subsequently filed its Opposition on August 12, 2014.  A Reply was filed to the Opposition by ARC on August 28, 2014.

Defendant’s Opposition argues that ARC’s Motion does not provide the Court with sufficient information to conclude that the underlying settlement with Plaintiff was in good faith pursuant to CCP 877.6 and the requisite factors set forth in the Tech-Bilt case.  Specifically, Mechanics Bank raise questions about the potential availability of insurance coverage and alleges that ARC’s responses to interrogatories regarding insurance coverage were false and misleading.  Mechanic’s Bank cites to specific deposition testimony of ARC’s PMQ regarding its financial stature and the possibility of “insurance recovery.”  Mechanics Bank further argues that the amount of the settlement ($10,000) should not shield ARC from indemnity claims given the misrepresentations regarding ARC’s available insurance coverage.

In contrast to the arguments set forth by Mechanics Bank, many of which are based on pure speculation about insurance coverage, the Court finds that the underlying  settlement was in good faith pursuant to CCP 877.6.  ARC’s moving papers and supporting declarations support both the liability defenses raised to the sole cause of action brought against it and further provide information about its financial condition thereby giving the Court enough information to conclude that the settlement was in good faith.  The Declaration of Debbe Dreher indicates that an insurance claim was presented and coverage was denied by Chicago Insurance Company.  The fact that there was no follow up to the denial is not a sufficient basis to deny the Motion for Good Faith Settlement Determination.  Moreover, Ms. Dreher provides sufficient financial information about ARC over the past four years which combined with the contested liability issues allows the Court to conclude that the settlement meets the Tech-Built standards.  Accordingly, the Application for Good Faith Settlement Determination is GRANTED.