Court Opinion

ID: 9744737
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:14:31.305116+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:51.225624
License: Public Domain

WOODS, J., Concurring.
I concur and write separately to accentuate the statutory shortcomings pertaining to good faith settlement procedures prescribed by Code of Civil Procedure sections 877 and 877.6. Whether these sections apply in the context of insurers seeking contribution, indemnity or other relief inter se has perplexed the courts for a considerable period of time. The judicial history of the conflicting Court of Appeal decisions on the issue is well developed in this opinion. I am convinced that our decision in Pacific Estates, Inc. v. Superior Court (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1561 [17 Cal.Rptr.2d 434] gives us proper guidance for resolution of the contentions in this matter relative to Code of Civil Procedure sections 877 and 877.6.
However, the question of whether insurance carriers should be included as “joint tortfeasors or co-obligors on a contract debt” when settling litigation on behalf of an insured so situated is a question which the Legislature should address. I urgently invite the Legislature to revisit Code of Civil Procedure sections 877 and 877.6 and consider passage of legislation which resolves the conflicting decisions and views of the Court of Appeal as highlighted in this opinion.
The petition of respondents CNA Casualty of California et al. for review by the Supreme Court was denied March 11, 1998.