Procedural Posture

Procedural Posture

Appellant insurer sought review from a Superior Court of San Diego County (California) summary judgment for appellees masonry subcontractor, framing subcontractor, and architect, arguing that summary judgment was improper and that its claims were not barred by contractual provisions or under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 877.6.


Appellant insurer filed indemnity and breach of contract claims as the owner’s assignee against appellees Norway salmon subcontractor, framing subcontractor, and architect. Appellee architect filed an express indemnity claim against appellant. The lower court granted summary judgment to appellees and appellant sought review. The court held summary judgment proper on appellant’s equitable indemnity claims against appellees masonry subcontractor and framing subcontractor. However, summary judgment was improper on express indemnity claims against those parties because there was either insufficient evidence or a disputed factual issue barring summary judgment. Finally, the lower court erred in granting summary judgment on appellant’s equitable indemnity claim against appellee architect because the express contractual provisions did not bar the action and appellee architect’s settlement with the owner’s overflow insurer did not bar the action under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 877.6.


The court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that where appellees had express contract provisions regarding indemnity claims summary judgment was proper, but finding that otherwise summary judgment was improper because none of the other bases for summary judgment applied in the case.

Ellen Hollington

Related posts