Appellant real estate broker sought review of an order of the Court of Appeal (California), which had upheld respondent trial court's denial of appellant's extraordinary writ. Appellant requested indemnity from real party in interest, seller, in an underlying action against appellant for fraudulent misrepresentation. The trial court held that Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 877.6 barred appellant's claim.
Appellant real estate broker filed a cross-complaint against real party in interest, seller, and sought indemnification on the basis of both equitable indemnity and implied contractual indemnity theories if appellant was to be held liable for fraudulent misrepresentation in a sale of condominiums. Real party in interest entered into a settlement and was released and respondent trial court denied appellant's writ for relief. The appeals court affirmed and held that a good faith settlement under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 877.6(c) barred a claim for implied contractual indemnity. On appeal, the court affirmed and held that absent an express indemnification agreement specifying that one party was to bear all of the liability for a loss for which both parties were responsible, the loss was to be apportioned under comparative indemnity principles. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that appellant had failed to demonstrate that the settlement was not in good faith. The court held that the evidence before the trial court provided substantial support that the settlement was in proportion to the responsibilities of the parties. The appellants had advocates that were small business attorney San Diego.
The court affirmed the judgment, which denied appellant real estate broker's request for an extraordinary writ. The court held that appellant's claim for indemnity was barred by a good faith settlement and release because there had been no indemnity agreement between the parties.
Petitioner bank customer challenged the judgment of respondent Superior Court of San Diego County (California), sustaining real party in interest bank's general demurrer to the customer's claim of breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
The customer maintained an ordinary commercial checking account with the bank, which, over a period of time, paid several checks upon which the customer's signature had been forged. The customer filed suit, stating causes of action for breach of contract, negligence, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The bank interposed a general demurrer as to the breach of implied covenant cause of action. The trial court sustained the demurrer, and the customer appealed. The court affirmed, holding that banks were not fiduciaries for their depositors, and that the bank-depositor relationship was not a "special relationship" such as to give rise to tort damages when an implied contractual covenant of good faith was broken.
The court affirmed the judgment.
