National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. Nationwide Insurance

An employee of a plumbing subcontractor slipped and fell during a “punch list” inspection on a high-rise construction project. The trial court made two separate factual findings based on the evidence: First, the general contractor was solely at fault; second, the general contractor’s negligence did not arise out of its supervision of the subcontractor’s work. Because there is sufficient evidence to support these findings, neither the subcontractor nor its liability insurer is required to indemnify the general contractor (either as an indemnitee or as an additional insured) for its $231,000 settlement of the underlying lawsuit.

I

In this challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we interpret the evidence and any conflicting inferences under the “very well settled” standards of substantial evidence review, which appellate courts have repeated *713 “countless times.” (Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court (1995) 9 Cal.4th 559, 571 [ 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 139 , 888 P.2d 1268 ].)

Roy Schain worked as a plumber for respondent Pangbom Plumbing Corporation. Pangbom was retained as the plumbing subcontractor for the construction of the 21-story Roybal Federal Building…

I disagree with my colleagues that we have jurisdiction to hear this appeal. The appeal is from an arbitration award, where the parties purported to confer jurisdiction on the Court of Appeal, first by way of their agreement to conduct binding arbitration “retaining their right of appeal,” and later by way of a nunc pro tunc order which purports to memorialize that something happened which in fact did not occur. Parties cannot by their agreement create appellate jurisdiction where none exists. (Old Republic Ins. Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 631, 639 [ 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 50 ].) Nunc pro tunc orders operate to correct the record to reflect what actually transpired; not to change the past or to record that something happened which did not. (Hamilton v. Laine (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 885, 890-891 [ 67 Cal.Rptr.2d 407 ].)

Except for certain nunc pro tunc orders which are statutorily authorized, primarily in the Family Code (see, e.g., Fam. Code, § 2346), such orders are essentially limited to correcting clerical error. (Hamilton v. Laine, supra, 57 Cal.App.4th at pp. 890-891.) “The court can only make the record show that something was actually done at a…

An employee of a plumbing subcontractor slipped and fell during a "punch list" inspection on a high-rise construction project. The trial court made two separate factual findings based on the evidence: First, the general contractor was solely at fault; second, the general contractor's negligence did not arise out of its supervision of the subcontractor's work. Because there is sufficient evidence to support these findings, neither the subcontractor nor its liability insurer are required to indemnify the general contractor (either as an indemnitee or as an additional insured) for its $231,000 settlement of the underlying lawsuit.

In this challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we interpret the evidence and any conflicting inferences under the "very well settled" standards of substantial evidence review, which appellate courts have repeated "countless times." ( Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court (1995) 9 Cal.4th 559, 571 , 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 139 , 888 P.2d 1268 .)

Roy Schain worked as a plumber for respondent Pangborn Plumbing Corporation. Pangborn was retained as the plumbing subcontractor for the construction of the 21-story Roybal Federal Building in…