Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00156/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00156-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD BUCKNER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND )

AND COMPANY, et al., )

)

Defendants )

____________________________________)

)

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION(S) )

____________________________________)

CV F 05-0156 AWI SMS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT

WASHING’S, DEFENDANT

AMERIPRIDE’S, AND DEFENDANT

SPRINGFIELD’S MOTION FOR A

DETERMINATION OF GOOD

FAITH SETTLEMENT 

[Documents #80, #83, & #87]

This action arises out of an accident in which Plaintiff Donald Bucker (“Buckner”) was

injured when his lab coat caught on fire, resulting in Buckner being severely burned. Buckner

sues the material maker, lab coat maker, and entities responsible for cleaning the lab coat,

contending that they are partly responsible for the lab coat remaining on fire and Buckner’s

injuries. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because the parties are citizens

of different states and over $75,000 is in controversy. Pending before the court are three

Defendants’ motions for determination of good faith settlement.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On December 5, 2004, Plaintiff Donald Buckner (“Buckner”) filed a complaint in the

Kern County Superior Court. The complaint named E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company

(“E.I. du Pont”), VF Imagewear Inc., named in the complaint as Bulwark Protective Apparel

(“VF Imagewear”), Ameripride Uniform Service (“Ameripride”), and Does 1 through 100 as

Case 1:05-cv-00156-AWI -SMS Document 108 Filed 05/12/06 Page 1 of 18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

Defendants. The complaint alleged negligence, strict products liability, negligent

misrepresentation, breach of express warranty, and breach of implied warranty. On February 3,

2005, Defendants removed this action to this court.

On February 15, 2006, VF Imagewear filed a cross claim against Ameripride and

Springfield LLC. (“Springfield”). In the cross claim, VF Imagewear contends that it is not

responsible for the events, happenings or damages mentioned the complaint. However, should

VF Imagewear be held liable, said liability will be based on the primary or active negligence or

fault of Ameripride and Springfield, and FV Imagewear would be entitled to indemnification. 

VF Imagewear’s cross complaint requests declaratory relief, indemnity, and contribution.

On March 4, 2005, Ameripride filed a cross claim against VF Imagewear and E.I. du

Pont. Ameripride’s cross complaint requests declaratory relief, indemnification and

contribution.

On March 25, 2005, Springfield filed a cross-complaint against VF Imagewear, E.I. du

Pont, and Ameripride. Springfield requests declaratory relief, indemnification, and

contribution.

On June 7, 2005, VF Imagewear and Ameripride dismissed their cross claims against

each other.

On June 10, 2005, Ameripride dismissed its cross claim against E.I. du Pont.

On August 2, 2005, Plaintiff dismissed E.I. de Pont from this action.

On September 14, 2005, Buckner filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint

names VF Imagewear, Ameripride, Springfield, Washing Systems LLC (“Washing”) and SIZWE

formally doing business as Washing Systems (“SIZWE”) as Defendants. The amended

complaint alleges negligence, strict products liability, negligent misrepresentation, breach of

express warranty, and breach of implied warranty. 

On October 19, 2005, Buckner dismissed SIZWE from this action.

On April 4, 2006, Springfield filed a motion for a determination of a good faith

Case 1:05-cv-00156-AWI -SMS Document 108 Filed 05/12/06 Page 2 of 18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

settlement. Springfield alleges that all Defendants believe Buckner is solely responsible for the

accident. However, Springfield has agreed to pay $100,000 to Buckner to settle Buckner’s

claims against Springfield. Springfield seeks a finding that the settlement is in good faith and

Springfield should be dismissed from all complaints, cross-claims, and counter-claims against it

in this action.

On April 7, 2006, Washing filed a motion for a determination of good faith settlement. 

While Washing states that all Defendants agree Plaintiff is solely at fault for the accident,

Washing has agreed to pay $100,000 to Buckner to settle all claims. Washing seeks a finding

that the settlement is in good faith and Washing should be dismissed from all complaints, crossclaims, and counter-claims against it in this action.

On April 13, 2006, Ameripride filed a motion for a determination of good faith

settlement. While Ameripride states all Defendants agree Plaintiff is solely at fault for the

accident, Ameripride has agreed to pay Buckner $500,000. Ameripride seeks a finding that the

settlement is in good faith and Ameripride should be dismissed from all complaints, crossclaims, and counter-claims against it in this action.

On April 24, 2006, VF Imagewear filed an opposition to Springfield’s motion. VF

Imagewear contends that Springfield’s proposed settlement is not within the range of its potential

liability. VF Imagewear contends that if a jury finds any defect in the coat, both Springfield and

VF Imagewear would be strictly liable as they are in the chain of distribution. VF Imagewear

contends that if there is a finding that VF Imagewear failed warn, it should be indemnified

because Springfield failed to warn VF Imagewear. VF Imagewear argues that if Springfield’s

motion is granted, VF Imagewear will be unable to obtain reimbursement for Springfield’s

percentage of fault.

On April 24, 2006, VF Imagewear filed an opposition to Ameripride’s motion. VF

Imagewear contends that Ameripride’s proposed settlement of $500,000 is not within the range

of its potential liability.

Case 1:05-cv-00156-AWI -SMS Document 108 Filed 05/12/06 Page 3 of 18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 4

On April 24, 2006, VF Imagewear filed an opposition to Washing’s motion. VF

Imagewear contends that Washing’s $100,000 proposed settlement is not within the range of its

potential liability.

On April 28, 2006, Buckner filed replies to VF Imagewear’s oppositions and statements

in support of Springfield’s, Ameripride’s and Washing’s motions for a determination of good

faith settlement.

On May 1, 2006, Springfield, Ameripride, and Washing filed reply briefs.

On May 8, 2006, the court held a hearing. After hearing oral arguments from the parties,

the court took the pending motions under submission. 

FACTS

A. Amended Complaint’s Allegations

The amended complaint alleges that on June 3, 2004, Buckner was working as a

laboratory technician. Buckner was involved in an incident where his lab coat ignited and

Buckner was severely burned. The amended complaint alleges that as a result of the manner in

which the lab coat had been cleaned and/or maintained and also the manner in which it had been

designed, constructed, manufactured, wholesaled, advertised, and sold, without inspection for

defects, and as advertised to Buckner’s employer, Buckner was severely injured.

The amended complaint alleges that Springfield was the manufacturer of the fabric that

was used to make the lab coat Buckner was wearing and/or designed, manufactured, advertised,

and introduced the lab coat which Buckner was wearing at the time of his injuries.

The amended complaint alleges that VF Imagewear designed, manufactured, advertised

and introduced the lab coat that Buckner was wearing into the commercial market without

inspection for defect.

The amended complaint alleges Ameripride ordered and purchased the lab coat, which

Buckner was wearing, from VF Imagewear and then leased it to Buckner’s employer, Kern Oil &

Refining Co. (“Kern Oil”). The amended complaint alleges that Ameripride was responsible for

Case 1:05-cv-00156-AWI -SMS Document 108 Filed 05/12/06 Page 4 of 18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 5

cleaning, laundering, repairing, and maintaining the lab coat.

The amended complaint alleges that Washing was in the business of consulting in the

areas of the care, cleaning, and maintenance of industrial protective wear, including the Nomex

lab coat that Plaintiff was wearing at the time he was injured. The amended complaint alleges

that Ameripride subcontracted with Washing to provide cleaning services or to consult regarding

these services. The amended complaint alleges Washing and Ameripride knew or should have

known the methods and substances they were recommending and using were not effective in

cleaning the garment and that as a result, the garment was less effective and less flame resistant. 

The lab coat Buckner was wearing at the time of his injuries had been in service and had

been utilized by Buckner for a period of in excess of one year. The lab coat was regularly

serviced, cleaned, maintained, dry cleaned, washed and de-greased by Ameripride and/or

Washing. The lab coat was designed and equipped with a five button front closure, and the

buttons were either plastic, bone, or a similar hard material. 

The amended complaint alleges that the lab coat was advertised and held out to be flameresistant and that it would resist ignition and would not continue to burn when removed from the

ignition source, and the garment purported to have an indefinite life cycle. The amended

complaint alleges the Defendants’ action created a dangerous condition regarding the coat’s

defects and these defects were known to or should have been know to Defendants. The

amended complaint alleges that Defendants were negligent in failing to warn of the hazards and

failing to provide appropriate and necessary safeguards for the user. The amended complaint

alleges that Defendants falsely and negligently portrayed to the public that the lab coat was fire

resistant and would resist ignition and not continue to burn when removed from an ignition

source and the five button closure would allow rapid removal. The amended complaint alleges

that Defendants placed the coat into the general stream of commerce and failed to mention the

product’s useful life and the effect of repeated washing or dry cleaning.

Case 1:05-cv-00156-AWI -SMS Document 108 Filed 05/12/06 Page 5 of 18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 6

B. Defendants’ Facts

A number of depositions have been taken in this action and substantial written discovery

has been conducted. Defendants provide certain facts pertinent to the pending motions that have

been elicited during discovery.

Buckner was a laboratory technician for Kern Oil. Kern Oil provided lab coats, that

were comprised of Nomex, which is a flame resistant fabric. On June 3, 2004, Buckner was

conducting a test on a gasoline sample. He was conducting two tests at the same time, one of

which involved the use of an open flame. During this process, Buckner placed an air hose

attached to the laboratory’s compressed air system into the gasoline sample, contrary to the

normal procedures for conducting tests. Buckner then turned on the valve for the compressed

air, causing liquid gasoline to spill out of the bottle and onto the lab coat Buckner was wearing. 

The gasoline fumes and gasoline ignited because Buckner was next to the open flame. Buckner

did not use the fire equipment in the laboratory and ran through an exterior door to a hose on the

exterior of the building. The lab coat continued to burn until he extinguished it with water. 

Buckner experienced difficulty in his attempts to remove the coat. Buckner suffered severe

burns.

Kern Oil allotted Buckner several lab coats to wear while he was in the lab. The lab

coats were comprised of Nomex IIIA, which is a flame resistant fabric. The fibers for the

material were manufactured by E.I. du Pont. These fibers were used to manufacture bulk

Nomex fabric by Springfield, which sold the fabric to VF Imagewear. VF Imagewear designed

and manufactured the lab coats. VF Imagewear sold some of the lab coats to Ameripride, which

owned them and leased them to Kern Oil for use by its employees. Ameripride would launder

the coats with chemicals and consulting services provided by Washing. As part of the

arrangement between Kern Oil and Ameripride, Ameripride would come by the Kern Oil facility

on a weekly basis to pick up items from the various departments, including the laboratory, to be

laundered, and returned after the next laundering. Washing provided cleaning products to

Case 1:05-cv-00156-AWI -SMS Document 108 Filed 05/12/06 Page 6 of 18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 7

Ameripride, which included washing detergent. Washing also provided washing formulas and

guidance to Ameripride regarding its laundering practices and procedures.

LEGAL STANDARD

In diversity cases, such as this one, state law governs determinations of good faith

settlements. Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp. v. Butler, 904 F.2d 505, 510 (9th Cir. 1990); Owen

v. United States, 713 F.2d 1461, 1464-1466 (9th Cir. 1983). California Code of Civil Procedure §

877 addresses the release of a joint tortfeasors:

Where a release, dismissal with or without prejudice, or a covenant not to sue or

not to enforce judgment is given in good faith before verdict or judgment to one or

more of a number of tortfeasors claimed to be liable for the same tort . . ., it shall

have the following effect:

(a) It shall not discharge any other such party from liability unless its terms so

provide, but it shall reduce the claims against the others in the amount stipulated

by the release, the dismissal or the covenant, or in the amount of consideration

paid for it whichever is the greater.

(b) It shall discharge the party to whom it is given from all liability for any

contribution to any other parties.

Cal. Civ. Pro. § 877. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained Section 877's effect:

Section 877 applies to settlement made in good faith only. Individuals not

participating in the settlement are barred from seeking contribution only if the

settling parties acted in good faith with respect to them. Hence, good faith of the

dismissal alone is not sufficient. The dismissal must represent a settlement which

is a good faith determination of relative liabilities. Only in this situation are both

policies behind § 877 – equity and settlement – furthered.

Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 640 F.2d 210, 213 (9th Cir. 1981).

California Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6 provides the procedure for good faith

settlements. It reads in part:

(a)(1) Any party to an action in which it is alleged that two or more parties are

joint tortfeasors or co-obligors on a contract debt shall be entitled to a hearing on

the issue of the good faith of a settlement entered into by the plaintiff or other

claimant and one or more alleged tortfeasors or co-obligors . . . .

(b) The issue of the good faith of a settlement may be determined by the court on

the basis of affidavits served with the notice of hearing, and any counteraffidavits

filed in response, or the court may, in its discretion, receive other evidence at the

hearing.

Case 1:05-cv-00156-AWI -SMS Document 108 Filed 05/12/06 Page 7 of 18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 8

© A determination by the court that the settlement was made in good faith shall

bar any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor from any further claims against the

settling tortfeasor or co-obligor for equitable comparative contribution, or partial

or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.

(d) The party asserting the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on

that issue.

. . . .

Cal. Civ. Pro. 877.6 

Sections 877 and 877.6 are designed to promote the equitable sharing of costs among the

parties at fault, and to encourage settlement. Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates,

38 Cal.3d 488, 494-498 (1985); Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co., 38 Cal.App.4th 1337,

1349 (1995). In addition, the offset provided for in section 877 assures that a plaintiff will not

be enriched unjustly by a double recovery, collecting part of his total claim from one joint

tortfeasor and all of his claim from another. Wouldridge v. Zimmerman, 21 Cal.App.3d 656,

658 (1971). Section 877.6(d)’s primary objective, like that of similar state statutes, is to

encourage settlements. Tech-Bilt, 38 Cal.3d at 494. However, it is also intended to complement

the equitable goals underlying rights of contribution. Id. 

To make an informed and intelligent decision about any settlement, the court must have

sufficient information to understand who benefits from the proposed settlement. “In other

words, the . . . court must understand the size of the settlement pie, how the pie is sliced, 

and who is getting which slice.” Oldham v. California Capital Fund, Inc., 109 Cal.App.4th 421,

432 (2003). As provided in Section 877.6(d), any party challenging the good faith of a proposed

settlement bears the burden of proving that the settlement was entered into in bad faith. To do

so, the challenging party must “demonstrate, if he can, that the settlement is so far 'out of the

ballpark', in relation to these factors as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of the

statute.” Tech-Bilt, 38 Cal.3d at 499-500. A district court’s good faith finding is one of “fact”

and will be reversed “only upon a showing that it was clearly erroneous because of lack of

evidentiary support or erroneous application of law.” Owen v. United States, 713 F.2d 1461,

1466 (9th Cir. 1983); Power v. Union Pac. Railroad Co., 655 F.2d 1380, 1382-1383 (9th Cir.

Case 1:05-cv-00156-AWI -SMS Document 108 Filed 05/12/06 Page 8 of 18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 9

1981)). 

In Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates, 38 Cal.3d 488 (1985), the California

Supreme Court established factors for the court to consider when determining if a settlement is in

good faith. The factors are: (1) A rough approximation of plaintiffs’ total recovery and the

settler’s proportionate liability; (2) The amount paid in settlement; (3) The allocation of

settlement proceeds among plaintiffs; (4) A recognition that a settlor should pay less in

settlement than he would if he were found liable after trial; (5) The financial conditions and

insurance policy limits of settling defendants; and (6) The existence of collusion, fraud or

tortuous conduct aimed to injure non-settling defendants’ interests. The California Supreme

Court explained:

The party asserting the lack of good faith . . . should be permitted to demonstrate,

if he can, that the settlement is so far “out of the ballpark” in relation to these

factors as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of the statute. Such a

demonstration would establish that the proposed settlement was not a “settlement

made in good faith” within the terms of section 877.6.

Tech-Bilt, 38 Cal.3d at 500-501. “Practical considerations” require that evaluation “be made on

the basis of the information available at the time of settlement.” Id. at 499.

DISCUSSION

Applying the Tech-Bilt factors, Springfield, Ameripride, and Washing contend that the

settlements are in good faith. Buckner also argues the settlements are in good faith. VF

Imagewear contends the settlements are not in good faith because the proposed settlements are

not proportionate to the potential damage award Buckner could receive after trial.

A. Rough Approximation of Plaintiff’s Total Possible Recovery

The parties appear to agree that Buckner’s medical expenses are approximately

$1,500,000 and continue. The paid medical expenses are in the neighborhood of $520,000, and

the charged medical expenses are believed to be in excess of $1,000,000. The parties agree that

if Buckner is able to prevail on all liability issues against Defendants, a gross recovery in the

range of $5,000,000 or more is not unlikely. At the hearing, VF Imagewear stated it was possible

Case 1:05-cv-00156-AWI -SMS Document 108 Filed 05/12/06 Page 9 of 18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 10

damages could even reach $10,000,000. 

In its brief, VF Imagewear presumes that $5,000,000 is a rough approximation of what

Buckner would obtain at trial. VF Imagewear claims that based on a verdict of $5,000,000, the

settlements are not in good faith because they are not proportionate to $5,000,000 even if the

court assumes comparative negligence of 50% by Buckner. 

A plaintiff's requests for damages are not determinative in finding good faith. Horton v.

Superior Court, 194 Cal.App.3d 727, 735-36 (1987). “Rather, the court is called upon to make a

‘rough approximation’ of what the plaintiff would actually recover.” West v. Superior Court, 

27 Cal.App.4th 1625, 1636 (1994). Several factors are relevant in this case to determine an

approximation of what Buckner could receive at trial, including Buckner’s damages, Buckner’s

comparative negligence, and the likelihood that Buckner will be able to show liability against

each Defendant.

1. Damages

Buckner’s damages are catastrophic. Buckner’s medical expenses are over $1,500,000. 

All parties appear to agree that Buckner may be able to prove total damages at trial over

$5,000,000, and it is possible damages will reach $10,000,000. Thus, if Buckner can show

liability, the approximation of Buckner’s damages is very high.

2. Comparative Negligence

All Defendants agree that Buckner is at least partly responsibly for his injuries. The

evidence shows that Buckner performed a dangerous test in a manner not authorized by his

employer. Buckner allowed his coat to become doused with gasoline and then Buckner came

into close proximity with an open flame. Buckner did not use a safety fire shower near his work

space nor other safety equipment in the lab. Based on the evidence currently before the court, it

is likely that a trier of fact would find Buckner’s comparative negligence for the accident

between 50% to 100%.

Case 1:05-cv-00156-AWI -SMS Document 108 Filed 05/12/06 Page 10 of 18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 11

3. Liability of Springfield

Buckner’s theory of liability against Springfield appears to be based on a theory that the

lab coat did not perform as expected. Specifically, the lab coat ignited and did not extinguish as

it was supposed to within two seconds of the ignition source being removed. Buckner’s theory

against Springfield also includes allegations that it failed to instruct consumers about proper

cleaning techniques. 

Springfield obtained Nomex fibers from the fiber manufacturer, E.I. du Pont, and wove

the fibers into a flame resistant fabric. The evidence shows that the material created by

Springfield was 100% Nomex IIIA, which is a blend of 93% Nomex, 5% Kevlar, and 2% P-140. 

The evidence shows this blend of materials is standard in the industry and does not affect the fire

retardant qualities of the fabric. The fabric met all applicable government and industry

standards. The fabric itself is inherently flame resistant; it is not covered by any fire resistant

substance.

Springfield admits it did not provide warnings that laundering could reduce the fabric’s

fire resistant qualities. However, Springfield argues that proper laundering would not degrade

the material’s fire resistant qualities as the material is not covered with a fire resistant substance. 

 In addition, Springfield only makes the material that was made into lab coats by VF Imagewear. 

Both VF Imagewear and E.I. du Pont provided appropriate care and laundering directions.

There is no evidence at this time that the fabric itself did not perform as it was supposed

to. Evidence indicates that the lab coat burned because it had been doused with a highly

flammable liquid – gasoline – and the gasoline was set on fire by a nearby open flame. The

evidence does not support a finding that the lab coat would have continued to burn without the

gasoline.

VF Imagewear contends that as the producer of the material in the “chain of distribution,”

Springfield could be held strictly liable to Plaintiff. The doctrine of strict liability in California

provides that a manufacturer, distributor, or wholesale or retail dealer is strictly liable in tort

Case 1:05-cv-00156-AWI -SMS Document 108 Filed 05/12/06 Page 11 of 18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Springfield argues it would not be liable under this theory because it only provided a

raw material. Under the raw material exception “component and raw material suppliers are not

liable to ultimate consumers when the goods or material they supply are not inherently

dangerous, they sell goods or material in bulk to a sophisticated buyer, the material is

substantially changed during the manufacturing process and the supplier has a limited role in

developing and designing the end product.” Artiglio v. General Electric Co., 61 Cal.App.4th 830,

839 (1998). It is questionable whether this theory would absolve Springfield of strict liability

because incorporating material into a lab coat does not appear to have substantially altered

Springfield’s product. However, it is unnecessary to resolve this issue because there is little

evidence to show that Springfield could be held liable under a strict liability theory. 

12

when an article he or she places on the market, knowing that it is to be used without inspection

for defects, proves to have a defect that causes injury to a human being. Anderson v.

Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 53 Cal.3d 987, 994 (1991). Three types of defect trigger a

manufacturer's strict liability: (1) manufacturing defects; (2) design defects; and (3) “warning

defects,” i.e., inadequate warnings or failure to warn. Id. at 995. Multiple defendants in the

chain of distribution of a single product are “jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff for the

harm caused by that product” under a strict liability theory. Wilson v. John Crane, Inc., 81

Cal.App.4th 847, 852 (2000).1

Assuming VF Imagewear is correct and it is possible that Springfield may be held liable

on a strict liability theory, VF Imagewear has not provided any evidence that a trier of fact will

likely find Springfield liable on such a theory. As discussed above, there is no cited evidence

that Springfield was responsibly for manufacturing defects in the cloth, design defects, or

inadequate warnings. The evidence cited by the parties indicates the material acted as it was

designed to do and adequate instructions regarding cleaning were provided. Thus, at this time,

it appears Springfield’s potential liability is slight. 

4. Liability of Ameripride and Washing

Buckner’s theory of liability against Ameripride and Washing appears to be that their

conduct in cleaning the lab coat degraded the flame resistant capacity of the coat. Buckner

alleges that this degradation caused or contributed to Buckner’s injuries by allowing the coat to

catch on fire. 

Case 1:05-cv-00156-AWI -SMS Document 108 Filed 05/12/06 Page 12 of 18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 13

VF Imagewear, the lab coat manufacturer, published technical information, known as

RK-63, or the “Red Kap” bulletin, which provides instructions on how to properly care for

Nomex lab coats. The source material for the bulletin came from I.E. du Point and another of

VF Imagewear’s suppliers of Nomex. I.E. du Pont has also disseminated certain documents

relating to the laundering of Nomex garments, including its “Nomex Aramid Fiber Laundering

Guide,” containing its recommended procedures for laundering Nomex. This guide introduces

“new, low-temperature detergent formulations” that resulted in improved washfastness of Nomex

garments. The evidence before the court shows Ameripride laundered Nomex garments at its

facility consistent with VF Imagewear’s and I.E. du Pont’s literature.

Ameripride washed its customers’ laundry in industrial washing machines using dry

chemicals. Nomex garments were washed and dried only with other Nomex garments. 

Ameripride consulted with Washing regarding proper laundering. Washing confirmed that the

washing formula utilized by Ameripride to launder the lab coats was appropriate for Nomex. 

Ameripride never received any complaint from Kern Oil regarding the cleanliness of the Nomex

garments.

Washing sold cleaning products to Ameripride for use in the laundering process,

including detergents. As part of this arrangement, Washing provided technical support to

Ameripride, including providing washing formulas for various “soil” classification and visiting

the plant once a month. No problems with the Nomex garments and lab coats were ever

reported to a technical representative from Washing.

In its opposition, VF Imagewear cites to a letter written by Buckner’s attorney, providing

Buckner’s theories on how the laundering could have resulted in damage to the lab coat. In the

letter, Buckner’s attorney discusses discovery showing that Ameripride, with respect to its

laundering of Nomex, had problems with oil redeposition; laundered coats in wash loads of 1000

pounds; used inappropriate temperature for washing and drying; used improper chemicals,

including bleach; and laundered the lab coats with items other than Nomex, including cotton. 

Case 1:05-cv-00156-AWI -SMS Document 108 Filed 05/12/06 Page 13 of 18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 14

In their reply, Ameripride offers evidence that deposition testimony by Ameripride’s production

manager, Robert Combs, negated every one of these theories. Mr. Combs’ testimony confirms

that Ameripride utilizes a wash formula designed as Formula 4-P to lauder Nomex. The Nomex

garments were laundered in approximate 60 pound loads at a maximum temperature of 130

degrees Fahrenheit. The garments were never laundered with bleach. Mr. Combs also testified

the Nomex garments were washed and dried only with other Nomex garments. Mr. Combs

testified that oil redeposition was a problem only with respect to Ameripride’s windshield towels. 

The evidence indicates Ameripride’s laundering practices were consistent with VF Imagewear’s

and E.I. du Pont’s instructions. Despite the letter setting forth Buckner’s potential theories of

liability, no party has provided evidence that Ameripride used a wash formula not appropriate for

Nomex.

There is no evidence cited by any party that Ameripride or Washing did or failed to do

something that caused or contributed to Buckner’s injuries. At this time, no evidence has been

found that either Ameripride or Washing’s conduct in the cleaning of the lab coat created

degradation. The evidence that leads to the conclusion that the coat burned because it had been

doused with gasoline and that the gasoline fumes and gasoline on the lab coat ignited due to the

proximity of the nearby open flame. Thus, at this time, the evidence indicates Ameripride’s and

Washing’s liability is slight.

B. Settlement Amounts

Springfield has agreed to pay $100,000 to Buckner in order to settle all of Buckner’s

claims as to Springfield.

Ameripride has agreed to pay $500,000 to Buckner in return for a release of all claims as

to Ameripride, including all liens, such as the Worker’s Compensation lien of the State

Compensation Insurance Fund.

Washing Systems has agreed to pay $100,000 to Buckner in return for a release of all

claims as to Washing, to include all liens, such as the Worker Compensation lien and State

Case 1:05-cv-00156-AWI -SMS Document 108 Filed 05/12/06 Page 14 of 18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 15

Compensation Insurance Fund.

C. Proportionate Liability

“[A] defendant’s settlement figure must not be grossly disproportionate to what a

reasonable person, at the time of the settlement, would estimate the settling defendant’s liability

to be.” Torres v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 157 Cal.App.3d 499, 509 (1984). The California Court

of Appeal explained:

For the damages are often speculative, and the probability of legal liability

therefor is often uncertain or remote. And even where the claimant’s damages are

obviously great, and the liability therefor certain, a disproportionately low

settlement figure is often reasonable in the case of a relatively insolvent, and

uninsured, or underinsured, joint tortfeasor.

Stambaugh v. Superior Court, 62 Cal.App.3d 231, 238 (1976). One of the most important good

faith settlement factors “is the settling party’s proportionate liability” in that “if there is no

substantial evidence to support a critical assumption as to the nature and extent of a settling

defendant’s liability, then determination of good faith based upon such assumption is an abuse of

discretion.” Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. v. Superior Court, 220 Cal.App.3d 864, 871

(1990).

The burden of proof on the issue of good faith is on the non-settler who asserts that the

settlement was not made in good faith. Cal.Civ.Pro. 877.6(d); Fisher v. Superior Court, 103

Cal.App. 434, 449 (1980). 

1. Springfield

VF Imagewear in its opposition looks at a total possible award of $5,000,000, and

concludes Buckner will be found at least 50% liable. VF Imagewear then argues Springfield

could be found at least 20% liable. VF Imagewear has calculated Springfield’s potential liability

to be $1,300,000. Springfield’s $100,000 settlement is only 2% of this potential verdict. Thus,

VF Imagewear concludes the settlement is not in good faith. The problem with VF

Imagewear’s position is that it fails to supply evidence by which a trier of fact would find

Springfield 20% liable. Another problem with VF Imagewear’s calculation is that while

Case 1:05-cv-00156-AWI -SMS Document 108 Filed 05/12/06 Page 15 of 18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 16

economic damages are joint, Buckner will only be able to collect them once. 

Based on the lack of evidence developed at this point linking Buckner’s damages with

Springfield’s design of the fabric or Springfield’s failure to provide washing instructions and the

probability of finding comparative negligence, Springfield’s $100,000 settlement is not

unreasonable or “out of the ballpark” under the circumstances. A $100,000 settlement is within

the ballpark of what a reasonable person would conclude Springfield’s liability could be. 

2. Ameripride

Using a total possible award of $5,000,000, VF Imagewear argues Ameripride could be

found at least 35% liable. VF Imagewear has calculated Ameripride’s potential liability to be

$1,900,000. Ameripride’s $500,000 settlement is far less than this potential verdict. The

problem with VF Imagewear’s position is that it fails to supply evidence by which a trier of fact

would find Ameripride 35% liable. 

Based on the lack of evidence developed at this point linking Buckner’s damages with

Ameripride’s conduct in cleaning the lab coat and the probability of finding comparative

negligence, Ameripride’s $500,000 settlement is not unreasonable or “out of the ballpark” under

the circumstances. A $500,000 settlement is within the ballpark of what a reasonable person

would conclude Ameripride’s liability would be. 

3. Washing

Using a possible award of $5,000,000, VF Imagewear argues Washing could be found at

least 20% liable. VF Imagewear has calculated Washing’s potential liability to be $1,300,000. 

Washing’s $100,000 settlement is only 2% of a potential verdict. The problem with VF

Imagewear’s position is that it fails to supply evidence by which a trier of fact would find

Washing 20% liable.

Based on the limited evidence that links Buckner’s damages with Washing’s conduct in

cleaning the lab coat and the probability of finding comparative negligence, Washing’s $100,000

settlement is not unreasonable or “out of the ballpark” under the circumstances. A $100,000

Case 1:05-cv-00156-AWI -SMS Document 108 Filed 05/12/06 Page 16 of 18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 17

settlement is within the ballpark of what a reasonable person would conclude Washing’s liability

could be. 

D. Other Factors

There is no suggestion of collusion, fraud or tortuous conduct to injure VF Imagewear’s

interests. The proposed settlements were reached after extensive settlement negotiations,

including a mediation by Retired Judge Russell Bostrom. Buckner was represented by counsel

at all times. The settlement negotiations and mediation were conducted after numerous

depositions were taken and substantial written discovery had been conducted. All evidence

indicates the settlement was negotiated at arm’s length. VF Imagewear was invited to

participate in the mediation, but it declined. 

The evidence does reveal that Ameripride’s and Washing’s insurance contains limits

above the amounts of the settlements. It is unclear if Springfield’s insurance contains limits

above the amount of its settlement. However, given the problems discussed above to proving

liability, the settlements are not out of the ballpark. 

It is possible Buckner would obtain more from Ameripride, Washing, and Springfield at

trial. However, Ameripride’s, Washing’s, and Springfield’s pretrial settlement warrants a

discount compared to a possible trial judgment. 

No significant concerns appear as to the allocation of the settlement. VF Imagewear has

failed to demonstrate the settlements lack good faith. The fact potential liability is

extraordinarily high is insufficient to find the settlements are not in good faith in light of the

limited evidence showing liability. 

ORDER

Accordingly, based on the above memorandum opinion and order, the court ORDERS

that:

1. Springfield’s motion for a determination of good faith settlement is GRANTED;

2. Washing’s motion for a determination of good faith settlement is GRANTED;

Case 1:05-cv-00156-AWI -SMS Document 108 Filed 05/12/06 Page 17 of 18
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 18

3. Ameripride’s motion for a determination of good faith settlement is GRANTED;

and

4. Buckner is ORDERED to file papers to dismiss Springfield, Ameripride, and

Washing from this action within twenty days of this order’s date of service.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 12, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00156-AWI -SMS Document 108 Filed 05/12/06 Page 18 of 18