Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-05307/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-05307-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO,

Plaintiff, No. C 04-5307 PJH

v. ORDER RE MOTIONS TO DISMISS

CROSS-CLAIM AND COUNTERCLAIM 

FACTORY MUTUAL INSURANCE 

COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants. _______________________________

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS

AND CROSS-CLAIM

_______________________________/

Plaintiff and counter-defendant City and County of San Francisco’s motion to

dismiss defendant, counterclaimant and cross-claimant Factory Mutual Insurance

Company’s counterclaim; CCSF’s motion to dismiss FMIC’s cross-claim; and defendant,

counterclaimant, and cross-claimant Bombardier Transportation (Holdings) U.S.A., Inc.’s

motion to dismiss FMIC’s cross-claim came on for hearing before this court on December

12, 2007. CCSF appeared by its counsel Timothy A. Colvig, FMIC appeared by its counsel

Joyce C. Wang and Randy W. Gimple, and Bombardier appeared by its counsel Gayle M.

Athanacio. Having read the parties’ papers and carefully considered their arguments and

the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby rules as follows.

1. CCSF’s motion to dismiss FMIC’s counterclaim is GRANTED in part and

DENIED in part. The motion to dismiss the first cause of action for fraud and concealment

is GRANTED, because CCSF is immune from liability for claims of misrepresentation. Cal.

Case 4:04-cv-05307-PJH Document 185 Filed 12/17/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Gov’t Code § 818.8; see also Warner Constr. Corp. v. City of Los Angeles, 2 Cal. 3d 285,

293-94 (1970) (and cases cited therein). The motion to dismiss the second cause of action

for breach of contract is GRANTED with regard to the allegation that CCSF breached its

contractual duty by attempting to prevent FMIC from bringing a claim in subrogation against

Bombardier, because FMIC is barred from bringing a claim in subrogation against

Bombardier. The motion to dismiss the second cause of action for breach of contract is

DENIED with regard to the allegation that CCSF breached its duty under the policy to not

conceal or misrepresent material facts. See Cal. Gov’t Code § 814; see also Warner

Constr., 2 Cal. 3d at 293-94. The motion to strike the prayer for attorney’s fees is

GRANTED.

2. CCSF’s motion to dismiss FMIC’s cross-claim against Bombardier is

DENIED, as CCSF is not the party against whom the cross-claim is asserted.

3. Bombardier’s motion to dismiss FMIC’s cross-claim is GRANTED, based on

the express waiver of subrogation clauses in Airport Contract No. 5703-A and FMIC

Insurance Policy No. UR495. See, e.g., Davlar v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. App. 4th 1121,

1124-25 (1997). The court is not persuaded by FMIC’s argument that enforcement of the

subrogation waivers is barred by the operation of California Civil Code § 1668 or the public

policy exception articulated in Tunkl v. Regents of Univ. of Calif., 60 Cal. 2d 92, 98-101

(1963). All California authority of which the court is aware applies the public policy

exception to exculpatory releases, not to subrogation waivers in construction contracts. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 17, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-05307-PJH Document 185 Filed 12/17/07 Page 2 of 2