Tiffin Motorhomes, Inc. v. Superior Court

INTRODUCTION

As our colleagues in Division Three of this court once remarked, “[i]t is hard to imagine another set of legal terms with more soporific effect than indemnity, subrogation, contribution, co-obligation and joint tortfeasorship. . . . Even lawyers find words like ‘indemnity’ and ‘subrogation’ ring of an obscure Martian dialect.” (Herrick Corp. v. Canadian Ins. Co. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 753, 756 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 844 ] (Herrick).) Fortunately for us, this case does not involve subrogation, but it otherwise includes the above mentioned elements of perplexity and confusion.

In this case, we are asked to determine whether the manufacturer of a vehicle engine that is sued on warranty grounds may rely on Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6 1 to escape any noncontractual obligation to indemnify a codefendant. We conclude that the statute does not apply in this situation and that the trial court therefore erred in granting real party in interest’s motion for approval of a good faith settlement.

BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS

The underlying action was brought by plaintiffs Thomas and Debra Pigott against several defendants, alleging that a motor home or recreational…