Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. v. Simplex Grinnell

Good Law
616 F. App'x 870
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 26, 201513-15753California1,173 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

We hold that Simplex Grinnell, LP (“Simplex”) owed a duty of care to the owner and tenant of the University of Sports (“UoS’’) facility and that the “completed and accepted” doctrine does not bar this insurance subrogation suit.

1. Simplex owed a duty of reasonable care to El Capitan Investments, LLC (“El Capitan”), the owner of the UoS facility, and University of Sports, LLC, its tenant. The district court held that Simplex was not a “design-builder” and did not owe plaintiffs a duty of care under Biakanja v. Irving, 49 Cal.2d 647 , 320 P.2d 16 (1958), which established a multi-factor test for determining when a defendant may be liable to a party hot in privity. Id. at 19. Courts analyze the Biakanja factors on a case-by-case basis, but “it is possible to derive general rules that govern common scenarios.” Beacon Residential Cmty. Ass’n v. Skidmore, Omngs & Merrill LLP, 59 Cal.4th 568 , 173 Cal.Rptr.3d 752 , 327 P.3d 850, 857 (2014).

This case falls closely under the reasoning of the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in Beacon. There, applying Biakanja , the court held that architects who had provided services to an apartment development owed a duty of care…

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.