Construction Protective Services, Inc. v. Tig Specialty Insurance

Good Law
126 Cal. Rptr. 2d 908·2002 Cal. LEXIS 7615·2002 Daily Journal DAR 12894·29 Cal. 4th 189·57 P.3d 372
Supreme Court of CaliforniaNovember 14, 2002No. S099647California3,340 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Brown, J.

Code of Civil Procedure 1 section 431.70 provides in pertinent part: “Where cross-demands for money have existed between persons at any point in time when neither demand was barred by the statute of limitations, and an action is thereafter commenced by one such person, the other person may assert in the answer the defense of payment in that the two demands are compensated so far as they equal each other, notwithstanding that an independent action asserting the person’s claim would at the time of filing the answer be barred by the statute of limitations. If the cross-demand would otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations, the relief accorded under this section shall not exceed the value of the relief granted to the other party.” In other words, section 431.70 permits a defendant in a civil action to assert a claim for relief in its answer and allege, in effect, that the defense claim constituted prior payment for the plaintiff’s claim and therefore should be set off against any award in the plaintiff’s favor.

In this case, the parties ask us to decide whether a comprehensive general liability insurance policy that obligates an insurer to defend and indemnify its…

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.