Lloyd's Underwriters v. Craig & Rush, Inc.

Good Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 742·26 Cal. App. 4th 1194·32 Cal. Rptr. 2d 144·94 Daily Journal DAR 10063·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5519
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 18, 1994D017893California2,572 words

Opinion

Opinion

Froehlich, J.

— The single issue in this appeal is the proper interpretation of a contractual clause by which the owner of property waived certain claims for damages against its contractors. Lloyd’s Underwriters et al. (appellants), the insurers for the owner, argue the damages for which they have sued respondents (the contractors for the job) fall outside the ambit of the waiver. Respondents argue that a plain reading of the clause shows any claim for such damages was waived. The trial court concluded the waiver applied. We agree and therefore affirm the judgment.

1. Facts

The relevant facts are undisputed. Mercy Rehabilitation and Care Center (hereafter Owner) hired respondents Craig and Rush, Inc., and Westerly Mechanical, Inc. (collectively Contractors) to perform repairs to the roof of Owner’s facility (hereafter the Work). During the job, rain intruded and caused damage to the interior of the facility. Appellants, who issued property insurance to Owner, paid for the damage less the deductible owed by Owner, and then sued Contractors by way of subrogation for Contractors’ alleged negligence.

Contractors moved for and obtained summary judgment based on a clause of the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.