First American Specialty Insurance Company v. Ford Motor Company et al
Filing
42
ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT by Hon. William Alsup granting #35 Motion for Hearing.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/13/2017)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
No. C 16-05951 WHA
FIRST AMERICAN SPECIALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY,
11
Plaintiff,
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
v.
13
14
15
FORD MOTOR COMPANY; CARMAX
AUTO SUPERSTORES CALIFORNIA, LLC;
CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES WEST
COAST, INC., and DOES 1 through 30,
inclusive,
ORDER GRANTING
APPLICATION FOR
DETERMINATION OF GOOD
FAITH SETTLEMENT
16
Defendants.
17
/
18
INTRODUCTION
19
In this products liability action, one defendant moves for a good faith settlement
20
determination. The co-defendants oppose. For the reasons set forth herein, the motion is
21
GRANTED.
22
STATEMENT
23
Plaintiff First American Specialty Insurance Company provided insurance for Anthony
24
Santos’s home in Fremont, California, and acts as subrogee in this action. It alleges that insured
25
purchased a 2002 Ford F-150 from defendants Carmax Auto Superstores California, LLC, and
26
Carmax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc. (collectively “Carmax”), which had a defective
27
speed control deactivation switch (“SCDS”). The SCDS was the subject of a recall because it
28
was known to fail without warning and combust, but defendants allegedly failed to timely
inform insured of the recall or otherwise fix the defective part. The defective SCDS caught fire
1
while on insured’s property and caused damage to his car, garage, and home. First American
2
paid insured $267,000 to cover the damage (Compl. at 1, 3–4).
3
First American sued defendants Ford Motor Company and Carmax to recover the money
4
it paid to insured. The complaint alleges claims for strict products liability against Ford, and
5
negligence against both Ford and Carmax. The negligence claims, however, arise from distinct
6
theories. First American alleges that Ford negligently designed and manufactured the truck,
7
whereas it alleges that Carmax negligently failed to warn the buyer of defects in the truck (id. at
8
3–4).*
9
The parties mediated their dispute before Judge Rebecca Westerfield at JAMS, and on
April 28, 2017, Ford reached a settlement with First American (Dkt. No. 32; Br. at 2). Ford
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
agreed to pay First American $85,000 in exchange for a release of all claims and a dismissal of
12
the action with prejudice. The settlement was conditioned on entry of a good faith
13
determination.
14
Carmax has not settled, and opposes Ford’s motion for determination of good faith
15
settlement arguing that the agreed-upon settlement amount is not a fair proportion of Ford’s
16
potential liability. This order follows full briefing and oral argument.
17
ANALYSIS
18
A finding of good faith settlement “bar[s] any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor from
19
any further claims against the settling tortfeasor or co-obligor for equitable comparative
20
contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or
21
comparative fault.” While the settlement does not discharge any other party from liability,
22
unless its terms so provide, Section 877.6(c) of the California Civil Procedure Code states: “it
23
shall reduce the claims against the others in the amount stipulated by the release, the dismissal
24
or the covenant, or in the amount of the consideration paid for it, whichever is the greater.”
25
The legislative objectives animating Section 877.6 “include both the encouragement of
26
settlement and the equitable allocation of costs among multiple tortfeasors.” Tech-Bilt, Inc. v.
27
28
*
The complaint originally alleged negligent manufacturing and strict products liability claims against
Carmax, but First American subsequently dismissed those claims (Dkt. No. 41).
2
1
Woodward-Clyde & Assocs., 38 Cal. 3d 488, 498–99 (1985). To put those principles into
2
practice, courts should consider a number of factors including:
3
4
5
6
a rough approximation of plaintiffs' total recovery and the settlor's
proportionate liability, the amount paid in settlement . . . and a
recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he
would if he were found liable after a trial. Other relevant
considerations include the financial conditions and insurance
policy limits of settling defendants, as well as the existence of
collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests
of nonsettling defendants.
7
Judges are not expected to be able to estimate an appropriate settlement amount with precision,
8
but must avoid settlements that are “grossly disproportionate” to the defendants’ share of
9
liability. Id. at 499; see also West v. Superior Court, 27 Cal. App. 4th 1625, 1635 (1994). A
10
the settlement is “so far out of the ballpark in relation to the [Tech-Bilt] factors as to be
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
party asserting that the settlement was not made in good faith bears the burden of proving that
11
12
inconsistent with the equitable objectives of [Section 877.6].” Tech-Bilt, 38 Cal. 3d at 499–500.
13
Ford contends that $85,000 is an appropriate settlement amount because First
14
American’s claims against it are relatively weak. It makes three points in support of this
15
argument. First, it observes that the Fremont Fire Department was unable to conclude what
16
caused the fire. Though the incident report lists the area of origin as either inside the engine or
17
underneath the front of the vehicle, it states that the ignition source — i.e. what actually started
18
the fire — is unknown. The incident report observes that the vehicle was parked over “ordinary
19
combustibles,” and photographs show an extension cord running along the wall of the garage,
20
both of which, Ford argues, are plausible alternative causes (Br. at 4 citing incident report at 3).
21
Ford further argues that the fire could have been ignited by another part of the engine besides
22
the SCDS, which would not render Ford liable in this suit (Br. at 5).
23
Second, a fail-safe mechanism installed by Ford, which has been proven to prevent fires
24
related to the defective SCDS, had been removed from the vehicle (by an unidentified party)
25
and replaced with an after-market part that would not have prevented a fire (Br. at 5). This too,
26
Ford argues, presents a plausible superseding cause of the fire.
27
Third, Ford argues that its liability for failure to inform insured of the recall is mitigated
28
by the fact that it sent multiple notices to the previous owner of the vehicle shortly after the
3
1
recall issued in 2005. Ford further observes that insured was aware of how to search for
2
outstanding recalls on a car, and admitted he had done so for other cars he had owned in the
3
past (Br. at 4–5 citing Santos Dep. 34:14–35:10). Finally, Ford sent insured a notice of recall
4
dated “April 2014.” He claims that he received the letter after the fire, which occurred on April
5
29, 2014 (Reply at 6). Whether the trier of fact will believe that this was the sequence of events
6
is an open question. Ford argues that insured may have instead received the letter before the
7
fire, but failed to act on it.
8
9
Carmax argues that Ford is paying far too little — one third of the total amount First
American is seeking — given its potential liability, which Carmax implies is the total damage
amount. Ford’s $85,000 settlement leaves Carmax in a position of having to pay potentially
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
two thirds of the total recovery. Carmax believes, however, that it should not be liable for any
12
damages because the negligence claim against it has no basis in law (Opp. 4–6, 9–10).
13
Accordingly, it argues, Ford’s settlement is unreasonable, and its motion should be denied.
14
Carmax’s reasoning is flawed in that it assumes either Carmax or Ford must be
15
responsible for all of the damages claimed. But as Ford’s motion points out, there are a number
16
of other possible sources of the fire, as well as intervening causes that could, at the very least,
17
defray some of the liability and reduce the total recovery, and could even reveal that there
18
should be no recovery. Therefore, it is not, as Carmax appears to suggest, a foregone
19
conclusion that Ford and Carmax will split the $267,000 bill. Moreover, if, as Carmax argues,
20
it is not liable as a matter of law, Ford’s settlement will not subject it to any liability. Rather,
21
Carmax will have an opportunity to present its theories at summary judgment and at trial, and
22
may prevail entirely.
23
Carmax has not carried its burden to show that Ford’s settlement is “grossly
24
disproportionate” to its share of liability. Tech-Bilt, 38 Cal. 3d at 499. Nor is there any
25
intimation that Ford colluded with First American, or otherwise engaged in fraud or wrongful
26
conduct in arriving at its settlement. Under the prevailing law, Ford has made a sufficient
27
showing of good faith and Carmax has not shown otherwise.
28
4
1
2
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Ford’s motion for an order determining that First American
3
and Ford have reached settlement in good faith pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure
4
Section 877 and 877.6 is GRANTED. Any claims which have been or may be asserted by
5
Carmax against Ford as a joint tortfeasor or co-obligor for equitable comparative contribution,
6
or partial comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault are
7
therefore barred.
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
Dated: July 13, 2017.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?