BRITZ, INC. v. Dow Chemical Co.

Good Law
1999 Cal. App. LEXIS 626·73 Cal. App. 4th 177·86 Cal. Rptr. 2d 188·99 Daily Journal DAR 6691·99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5251
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 29, 1999F030476California2,874 words

Opinion

Opinion

Thaxter, J.

A joint tortfeasor settles with the plaintiff, obtains a good faith settlement determination, is dismissed from the case and dismisses its cross-complaint for indemnity against its codefendants. Subsequently, the codefendants settle with the plaintiff and, after notice to the joint tortfeasor, obtain good faith settlement determinations. Can the joint tortfeasor then pursue a separate action for indemnity against its former codefendants? We hold it may not.

Facts

In 1990, the Cities of Fresno, Clovis, Dinuba and Reedley sued Shell Oil Company (Shell), Dow Chemical Company (Dow), Occidental Chemical Corporation (Occidental), Britz, Inc. (Britz) and other parties in separate San Francisco Superior Court actions alleging the defendants had contaminated their drinking water supplies with the agricultural pesticides DBCP (1, 2, dibromo-3-chloropropane) and EDB (ethylene dibromide). Dow, Shell and Occidental manufactured the chemicals; Britz and other parties sold them to farmers. The cities alleged that Britz, unlike most of the other retailer defendants, sold DBCP after it was banned by the State of California in 1977. Britz cross-complained for indemnity against Dow, Shell…

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.