 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Vacaville Quail Run v. Gable Plastics1/30/2002
s that were not related to ABS pipe. This argument indicates that something less than the entire amount of the Converse settlement was related to ABS but does not account for the court's allocation.
Although the amount may be supportable, we have found no evidence in the record on appeal to support it. Counsel's argument that much of the Converse settlement was not ABS related is not evidence. We will remand for consideration of the evidence to determine the appropriate credit for the portion of the Converse settlement allocable to the same tort for which Gable was claimed to be liable.
The Centaur Allocation Is Not Supported by the Evidence
Centaur, also a manufacturer of ABS pipe, contributed $12,500 to the settlement. The court gave a 25 percent credit, or $3,125 for the Centaur settlement. Gable argues it is entitled to a full payment credit on this amount because Centaur is a "same tort" defendant.
In its amended judgment, the court stated that plaintiff's witnesses testified the best way to repair the ABS problem was to replace all above-ground pipe. Relying on testimony that replacing only the defective above-ground pipe would result in a savings of 15 percent, the court deducted 15 percent from the judgment against Gable for repair of all of the above ground pipe. If, as the judgment states, the award against Gable was for repair of all defective pipe, Gable would be entitled to a 100 percent credit for the Centaur settlement. There is no indication in the record for the basis of this allocation. We remand this item for a calculation based on the evidence.
The Credit For the IAPMO Settlement Is Not Supported by the Evidence
The IAPMO is an organization that "promotes uniformity in the plumbing trade through its UPC (Uniform Plumbing Code) and publishes a plumbing research directory which lists plumbing products, such as acrylonitrite-butadiene-styrene (ABS) drain, waste and vent (DWV) pipe, that it has found to meet UPC standards." (FNS Mortgage Service Corp. v. Pacific General Group, Inc. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1564, 1567 (FNS Mortgage).) IAPMO conducts testing of a manufacturer's product for conformity with UPC standards and authorizes the manufacturer to affix the UPC logo on the product. (Id. at p. 1568.)
IAPMO contributed $40,000 to the settlement. The trial court allocated 40 percent of that amount as a credit to Gable, in light of the evidence regarding the percentage of pipe belonging to Gable. Gable argues that it should have received a 100 percent credit, because the fact that it supplied 40 percent of the pipe was irrelevant.
The trial court may have confused comparative fault with determining amounts allocable to areas of joint obligation. Like the Centaur allocation, if the judgment against Gable was for all of the defective pipe, and IAPMO's liability was for the same tort, Gable should get a 100 percent credit for this settlement. On remand, unless there is other evidence by which the IAPMO settlement may be allocated to some other injury , the court shall credit the entire settlement amount against the Gable judgment.
The Allocation for the PPI Settlement Was Not Supported by the Evidence
Plastic Processing, Inc. (PPI) furnished the defective plastic materials used in the manufacture of the defective ABS pipe in the VQR complex. PPI contributed $400,000 to the settlement. The court allocated 40 percent of the PPI settlement, or $160,000, to Gable. Gable argues it is entitled to 100 percent of that amount, and we again agree with Gable.
When an injury is divisible, such as one that included damage to flooring and damage caused by defective wiring
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|