> >
Case Name | Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. | |
---|---|---|
Date | 09/18/2008 | |
Note | [Unpublished] Appellant's right to pursue a direct action against PG&E was not precluded by the settlement and dismissal of injured employee's lawsuit against PG&E. | |
Citation | A119344 | |
WCC Citation | WCC 34262008 CA |
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. By a letter to Hartford dated January 20, 2006, PG&E acknowledged receipt of Hartford's claim and informed Hartford that Nash had settled her lawsuit with PG&E. Once Nash settled her action and agreed to release her rights against PG&E, Hartford had no rights against PG&E. Consequently, although PG&E might have contractual or equitable indemnity rights against Nash, PG&E could not escape liability for Hartford's claim for reimbursement. As a matter of law, PG&E had no duty to notify and/or obtain the consent of plaintiff Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company ('Hartford') to the pending settlement. "
Download full case here.
Download full case here.