Trident Center v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company

Good Law
847 F.2d 564·1988 WL 50713
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 5, 198887-6085, 87-6267California3,692 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kozinski, J.

The parties to this transaction are, by any standard, highly sophisticated business people: Plaintiff is a partnership consisting of an insurance company and two of Los Angeles’ largest and most prestigious law firms; defendant is another insurance company. Dealing at arm’s length and from positions of roughly equal bargaining strength, they negotiated a commercial loan amounting to more than $56 million. The contract documents are lengthy and detailed; they squarely address the precise issue that is the subject of this dispute; to all who read English, they appear to resolve the issue fully and conclusively.

Plaintiff nevertheless argues here, as it did below, that it is entitled to introduce extrinsic evidence that the contract means something other than what it says. This case therefore presents the question whether parties in California can ever draft a contract that is proof to parol evidence. Somewhat surprisingly, the answer is no.

Facts

The facts are rather simple. Sometime in 1983 Security First Life Insurance Company and the law firms of Mitchell, Silber-berg & Knupp and Manatt, Phelps, Rothen-berg & Tunney formed a limited partnership for the purpose of constructing…

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.