Opinion ID: 534112
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Claims and Litigation

Text: 16 There is no merit to Victoria's argument that the Bonannos' right of approval did not arise because the settlement here is not a settlement pursuant to litigation, but rather the settlement of a claim. In his declaration, Gene Cammarota testified that [a]t no time was it my understanding ... that there was intended to be or, in fact, was any difference in the meaning between the terms 'litigation' and 'claims', as set forth in Section 13 of the agreement. Another declaration by Bert Bonanno is to the same effect. It was not error to allow this evidence. See Pacific Gas and Elec. Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage Etc. Co., 69 Cal.2d 33, 37, 69 Cal.Rptr. 561, 564, 442 P.2d 641, 644 (1968) (The test of admissibility of extrinsic evidence to explain the meaning of a written instrument is not whether it appears to the court to be plain and unambiguous on its face, but whether the offered evidence is relevant to prove a meaning to which the language of the instrument is reasonably susceptible.); accord McLain v. Great Am. Ins., 256 Cal.Rptr. 863, 868-69 (1989). The record does not reveal a single specific fact supporting Victoria's interpretation of the meaning of the terms at issue.