Setser

John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance v. Setser

Good Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 165·42 Cal. App. 4th 1524·50 Cal. Rptr. 2d 413·96 Daily Journal DAR 2219·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1326
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 28, 1996A066741California5,989 words

Opinion

Opinion

Phelan, J.

John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company (hereinafter John Hancock or appellant) timely appeals from an order of the San Mateo County Superior Court denying its application for attorney fees (Code Civ. Proc., § 1021.6) on the grounds that a fee award was barred by a good faith settlement (§ 877.6) between the plaintiff, Ruby Waldron (hereinafter Waldron or plaintiff), and the remaining defendants, Robert Setser, Sofian Susantio and Net Equity Associates (collectively, hereinafter, the Setser defendants or respondents). We conclude that John Hancock’s statutory claim for attorney fees, which is an aspect of a claim for implied indemnity on which it had prevailed prior to confirmation of the good faith settlement, is not barred by section 877.6. Accordingly, we reverse.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

This case arises from the sale to Waldron of a “reverse mortgage” program by the Setser defendants in January 1990. In June 1991, Waldron sued the Setser defendants, John Hancock and others, alleging breach of contract, fraud, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and breach of fiduciary duty. Although Waldron amended her complaint several times, at all relevant…

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.