2017-00205876-CL-PA

State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. vs. Erik Gontar

Nature of Proceeding: Determination of Good Faith Settlement

Filed By: Hallissy, John P.

Defendant Williams’ motion for determination of good faith of settlement is GRANTED, as follows.

Factual Background

This is a subrogation action by plaintiff insurer to recoup payments of roughly $20,600 to its insured on account of injuries and damages suffered by the latter as a result of a multi-vehicle accident involving a vehicle operated by defendant Williams and another operated by defendant Erik Gontar but owned by his father, Anatoliy. Trial is currently set to commence on 9/10/2018.

Defendant Williams has agreed to pay one-half of plaintiff’s claimed damages, or just over $10,300, in exchange for a release and dismissal. Williams seeks by this motion a good faith determination which would effectively bar Erik and Anatoliy Gontar’s respective cross-complaints against Williams for apportionment of fault and declaratory relief.

The Gontar defendants oppose Williams’ motion, arguing that the latter’s settlement “improperly infringes on the rights of the [Gontars] who were not parties to the settlement.” The opposition also asserts that the settlement does not negate the Gontar defendants right to the relief sought in their cross-complaint, claimed to include the right to not only apportionment of fault but also “indemnification…if they pay beyond their share of liability.” Notably, the Gontars opposition neither includes nor refers to any evidence whatsoever, either in the form of a declaration or documents, but instead consists solely of a memorandum of points & authorities.

Analysis

At the outset the court must note that Code of Civil Procedure §877.6(d) clarifies it is the non-settling parties asserting the lack of good faith who “have the burden of proof on that issue” and thus, it is the Gontar defendants who must, in order to prevail here, present evidence demonstrating that the $10,300 settlement offered by Williams so far outside of the ballpark in relation to the Tech-Bilt factors as to be inconsistent with the objectives of the good faith settlement statute. (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499-500.)

However, the opposition has failed to meet this burden since, based on the evidence now before the court, defendant Williams likely bears no more than 50% fault for the subject accident (and likely far less than that) and yet, Williams has agreed to pay 50% of plaintiff’s damages. The upshot of this is that the Gontar defendants now face at trial liability for no more than the remaining 50% of plaintiff’s damages even though their cumulative liability for these damages may well exceed 50%, effectively providing the Gontars with a windfall.

The mere fact that the Gontars defendants are not parties to the settlement between plaintiff and defendant Williams is essentially irrelevant to the disposition of this motion, given that the purpose of the good faith settlement procedure was primarily designed to address the precise situation here: Less than all of the alleged joint tortfeasors reach a settlement with the plaintiff and desire to cutoff their potential exposure to all other non-settling joint tortfeasors for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault. (See, e.g., Code Civ. Proc. §877; §877.6(a)(1), (c).) While a finding that Williams’ settlement with plaintiff is in good faith will have the effect of precluding the Gontars from obtaining and indemnity or contribution from Williams, this is the result sanctioned by the Legislature and thus, the court rejects the opposition’s suggestion that Williams’ settlement will “improperly infringe[] on the rights” of the non-settling parties, the Gontars.

Conclusion

Because the opposition has failed to satisfy its burden of producing evidence which demonstrates the settlement between plaintiff and defendant Williams is not in good faith, the latter’s motion for determination of good faith of settlement must be granted and this settlement shall have the effect specified in Code of Civil Procedure §877 and §877.6, including the dismissal of the Gontar defendants’ respective cross-complaints against Williams.

Pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312, defendant Williams to prepare a judgment of dismissal of the Gontars’ respective cross-complaints against Williams.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)