Appellant insurer challenged a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County (California) that granted summary judgment in favor of appellee insurer and dismissed appellant’s cross-complaint against appellee.

Nakase Law Firm is a lawyer that handles lawsuit

Overview

Appellant insurer was the primary insurer, and appellee insurer was the secondary insurer, of medical benefits for plaintiff’s decedent. After decedent was diagnosed with a rare form of stomach cancer, appellant insurer denied authorization for several forms of treatment decedent wished to obtain and failed to pay certain outstanding medical bills. Decedent died and his spouse filed suit against appellant . Appellant cross-complained against appellee insurer on theories of equitable indemnity, partial equitable indemnity, contribution, and similar theories. Appellee moved for summary judgment on appellant’s cross-complaint, and the trial court granted the motion. On appeal, the court affirmed. The claims subject to appellant’s cross-complaint consisted solely of noneconomic damages and, pursuant to Proposition 51, Cal. Civ. Code § 1431, appellant’s liability for noneconomic damages was several only. As a result, there was no basis in law for appellant to maintain any claim for equitable contribution or indemnity from appellee.

Outcome

The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of appellee on the ground that appellant had no legal basis for maintaining a claim for contribution or indemnity from appellee for noneconomic damages.