third-party claim in California

2025As our Supreme Court has stated in connection with the duty to defend, “[a]n insurer must defend against a suit even ‘ “where the evidence suggests, but does not conclusively establish, that the loss is not covered.” ’ ” (Hartford, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 287.) Any doubt must be resolved in favor of the insured (ibid.), such that the insurer is excused from defending against a third party claim “only when ‘ “the third party complaint can by no conceivable theory raise a single issue which could bring it within the policy coverage.” ’ ” (Id. at p. 288, italics added; see also Montrose, supra, 6

2025As our Supreme Court has stated in connection with the duty to defend, “[a]n insurer must defend against a suit even ‘ “where the evidence suggests, but does not conclusively establish, that the loss is not covered.” ’ ” (Hartford, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 287 .) Any doubt must be resolved in favor of the insured (ibid.), such that the insurer is excused from defending against a third party claim “only when ‘ “the third party complaint can by no conceivable theory raise a single issue which could bring it within the policy coverage.” ’ ” (Id. at p. 288, italics added; see also Montrose, supra,

2024We disagree and affirm the order. 1 A third party claim is an assertion by a party claiming a security interest or lien on the property that is entitled to protection in the collection process. (§ 720.210; Oxford Street Properties, LLC v. Rehabilitation Associates, LLC (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 296, 307 .) Section 720.210, subdivision (a), provides that “Where personal property has been levied upon under a writ of attachment, a writ of execution, a prejudgment or postjudgment writ of possession, or a writ of sale, a third person claiming a security interest in or lien on the personal property may

2024DISCUSSION A. Legal Standards for the Litigation of Third Party Claims The Enforcement of Judgments Law (§ 680.010 et seq.) “is a comprehensive scheme governing the enforcement of all civil judgments in California.” (Imperial Bank v. Pim Electric, Inc. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 540, 546 .) Under the Enforcement of Judgments Law, where personal property has been levied upon under a writ of execution, a third party who claims ownership of or the right to possess the property may file a third party claim with the levying officer. (§ 720.110, subd. (b).)11 Next, “either the creditor or the third perso

2023Second, for purposes of the third party exception, a third party “ ‘must be construed to mean a party that is not bound by the arbitration agreement.’ ” (Laswell v. 7 AG Seal Beach, LLC, supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at p. 1407 .) “[I]n many cases, nonparties to arbitration agreements are allowed to enforce those agreements where there is sufficient identity of parties.

2023(Lindemann v. Hume (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 556, 566 [“the correct interpretation of section 1281.2, subdivision (c), like any other issue of statutory interpretation, is a question of law subject to de novo review”]; Laswell v. AG Seal Beach, LLC, supra, 5 189 Cal.App.4th at p. 1406 [“whether a defendant is in fact a third party for purposes of Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2, subdivision (c), is a matter of law subject to de novo review”]; Whaley v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc., at p. 484 [where sole issue on appeal is whether trial court erred in denying arbitration based

2026(See Crawford, supra, 44 Cal.4th at pp. 551–553.) Part of that summary states: “Parties to a contract, ... may define therein their duties toward one another in the event of a third party claim against one or both arising out of their relationship.

2026(See Crawford, supra, 44 Cal.4th at pp. 551–553.) Part of that summary states: “Parties to a contract, ... may define therein their duties toward one another in the event of a third party claim against one or both arising out of their relationship.

2024DISCUSSION A. Legal Standards for the Litigation of Third Party Claims The Enforcement of Judgments Law (§ 680.010 et seq.) “is a comprehensive scheme governing the enforcement of all civil judgments in California.” (Imperial Bank v. Pim Electric, Inc. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 540, 546 .) Under the Enforcement of Judgments Law, where personal property has been levied upon under a writ of execution, a third party who claims ownership of or the right to possess the property may file a third party claim with the levying officer. (§ 720.110, subd. (b).)11 Next, “either the creditor or the third perso

2024DISCUSSION A. Legal Standards for the Litigation of Third Party Claims The Enforcement of Judgments Law (§ 680.010 et seq.) “is a comprehensive scheme governing the enforcement of all civil judgments in California.” (Imperial Bank v. Pim Electric, Inc. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 540, 546 .) Under the Enforcement of Judgments Law, where personal property has been levied upon under a writ of execution, a third party who claims ownership of or the right to possess the property may file a third party claim with the levying officer. (§ 720.110, subd. (b).)11 Next, “either the creditor or the third perso

2024DISCUSSION A. Legal Standards for the Litigation of Third Party Claims The Enforcement of Judgments Law (§ 680.010 et seq.) “is a comprehensive scheme governing the enforcement of all civil judgments in California.” (Imperial Bank v. Pim Electric, Inc. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 540, 546 .) Under the Enforcement of Judgments Law, where personal property has been levied upon under a writ of execution, a third party who claims ownership of or the right to possess the property may file a third party claim with the levying officer. (§ 720.110, subd. (b).)11 Next, “either the creditor or the third perso

2024DISCUSSION A. Legal Standards for the Litigation of Third Party Claims The Enforcement of Judgments Law (§ 680.010 et seq.) “is a comprehensive scheme governing the enforcement of all civil judgments in California.” (Imperial Bank v. Pim Electric, Inc. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 540, 546 .) Under the Enforcement of Judgments Law, where personal property has been levied upon under a writ of execution, a third party who claims ownership of or the right to possess the property may file a third party claim with the levying officer. (§ 720.110, subd. (b).)11 Next, “either the creditor or the third perso

2023(Rideau v. Stewart Title of California, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1286, 1294 .) “Generally, the inclusion of attorney fees as an item of loss in a third-party claim-indemnity provision does not constitute a provision for the award of attorney fees in an action on the contract which is required to trigger section 1717.” (Carr Business Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Chowchilla (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 14, 20 (Carr).) 25 The court in Alki Partners explained that in general, an indemnification provision “allows one party to recover costs incurred defending actions by third parties, not attorney fees

2015The general rule is that the specification of attorney fees as an item of loss in a third party claim indemnity provision (§ 2778, subd. (3)) "does not constitute a provision for the award of attorney fees in an action on the contract which is required to trigger section 1717." ( Carr, supra, at p. 20 ; citing Myers Building Industries, supra, 13 Cal.App.4th at pp. 971-973; Meininger, supra, 63 Cal.App.3d 82, 84-85 .) Where a party proves entitlement to recover under an indemnity clause (as an indemnitee), the other party (the indemnitor) must reimburse the indemnitee "for any damages the inde

2026(See Rideau v. Stewart Title of California, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1286, 1298 [“The general rule is that the specification of attorney fees as an item of loss in a third party claim indemnity provision [citation] ‘does not constitute a provision for the award of attorney fees in an action on the contract which is required to trigger section 1717’ ”].) But, as Prime Contractor concedes, the provision here is not such a provision.

2023(Rideau v. Stewart Title of California, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1286, 1294 .) “Generally, the inclusion of attorney fees as an item of loss in a third-party claim-indemnity provision does not constitute a provision for the award of attorney fees in an action on the contract which is required to trigger section 1717.” (Carr Business Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Chowchilla (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 14, 20 (Carr).) 25 The court in Alki Partners explained that in general, an indemnification provision “allows one party to recover costs incurred defending actions by third parties, not attorney fees

2013“A trial court does not have discretion to deny arbitration under . . . section [1281.2(c)], absent the presence of a third party . . . .” (Laswell, supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at p. 1409.) “The term ‘third party’ for purposes of section 1281.2[(c)], must be construed to mean a party that is not bound by the arbitration agreement.” (RN Solution, Inc. v. Catholic Healthcare West (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1511, 1519 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 892 ] (RN Solution); see Laswell, at p. 1407.) “[A] plaintiff’s inclusion of a nonarbitrable cause of action in the complaint is not grounds to deny arbitration under the th

2013“A trial court does not have discretion to deny arbitration under . . . section [1281.2(c)], absent the presence of a third party . . . .” (Laswell, supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at p. 1409.) “The term ‘third party’ for purposes of section 1281.2[(c)], must be construed to mean a party that is not bound by the arbitration agreement.” (RN Solution, Inc. v. Catholic Healthcare West (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1511, 1519 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 892 ] (RN Solution); see Laswell, at p. 1407.) “[A] plaintiff’s inclusion of a nonarbitrable cause of action in the complaint is not grounds to deny arbitration under the th

2025Exchange (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 676 , 687 (Pinto); accord, Barickman v. Mercury Casualty Co. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 508, 520 (Barickman) [“‘the ultimate test is whether the insurer’s conduct was unreasonable under all of the circumstances’”].) “An insurer that pays the full amount of its policy may be liable for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing if improper claims handling causes detriment to the insured.” (Hedayati, supra, 67 Cal.App.5th at p. 844 [failure to communicate with policyholder]; Boicourt v. Amex Assurance Co. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1390, 1392, 1399-1400 (Bo

2023Co. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1445, 1460 .) Specifically, “[i]n evaluating whether an insurer acted in bad faith, ‘the critical issue [is] the reasonableness of the insurer’s conduct under the facts of the particular case.’ [Citation.] To hold an insurer liable for bad faith in failing to settle a third party claim, the evidence must establish that the failure to settle was unreasonable.” (Pinto, supra, 61 Cal.App.5th at p. 687.) The determination of an insurer’s good or bad faith as to settlement must be evaluated in “ ‘light of the totality of the circumstances. . . .’ [Citation.]” (Hedayati v. I

2025After independently reviewing the contract, we agree with Whiting- Turner that section 14.2.5 is such a unilateral attorney fee provision and that section 1717, subdivision (a), makes it reciprocal. 5 “[T]here is no magic formulation for a fees provision.” (International Billing Services, Inc. v. Emigh (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1175, 1183 .) But section 1717, subdivision (a), applies “only to contractual provisions providing for an award of attorney fees incurred to enforce the contract.” (Myers, supra, 13 Cal.App.4th at p. 971 .) True, section 14.2.5 indicates, in its final sentence, that the par

2025Co. v. Loo (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1797 .) Respondent was entitled to recover as defense costs the attorney fees it incurred in the litigation against Mid- Century. “[A] promise of indemnity against claims, demands, or liability ‘embraces the costs of defense against such claims, demands, or liability’ insofar as such costs are incurred reasonably and in good faith. ([Civil Code,] § 2778, subd. 3, italics added.)” (Crawford, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 553 ; see also Myers Building Industries, supra, 13 Cal.App.4th at p. 971, fn. 20 [attorney fees incurred in a third party claim “are recoverab

2024DISCUSSION A. Legal Standards for the Litigation of Third Party Claims The Enforcement of Judgments Law (§ 680.010 et seq.) “is a comprehensive scheme governing the enforcement of all civil judgments in California.” (Imperial Bank v. Pim Electric, Inc. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 540, 546 .) Under the Enforcement of Judgments Law, where personal property has been levied upon under a writ of execution, a third party who claims ownership of or the right to possess the property may file a third party claim with the levying officer. (§ 720.110, subd. (b).)11 Next, “either the creditor or the third perso

2024DISCUSSION A. Legal Standards for the Litigation of Third Party Claims The Enforcement of Judgments Law (§ 680.010 et seq.) “is a comprehensive scheme governing the enforcement of all civil judgments in California.” (Imperial Bank v. Pim Electric, Inc. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 540, 546 .) Under the Enforcement of Judgments Law, where personal property has been levied upon under a writ of execution, a third party who claims ownership of or the right to possess the property may file a third party claim with the levying officer. (§ 720.110, subd. (b).)11 Next, “either the creditor or the third perso

2015The trial court’s ruling extensively analyzed and distinguished Baldwin Builders , in which the subject attorney fees provision was located within the indemnity provision, providing “ ‘Subcontractor shall pay all costs, including attorney’s fees, incurred in enforcing this indemnity agreement [(i.e., in an action to enforce the indemnity)].’ ” (Baldwin Builders, supra, 125 Cal.App.4th at p. 1342 .) The contractor Baldwin Builders had been sued by homeowners, and in turn it sued the subcontractors for contractual indemnity, etc. The subcontractors were thus required to defend themselves against

2013Court costs shall be borne by the losing party." 27 "A provision including attorney fees as an item of loss in an indemnity clause is not a provision for attorney fees in an action to enforce the contract." (Myers, supra, 13 Cal.App.4th at p. 971 .) Alternatively stated, "the inclusion of attorney fees as an item of loss in a third party claim-indemnity provision does not constitute a provision for the award of attorney fees in an action on the contract which is required to trigger section 1717." (Carr Business Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Chowchilla (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 14, 20 .) Because Pr

2015(Continental Heller, supra, 53 Cal.App.4th at p. 509 , italics omitted.) In that case, Continental Heller had settled a third party claim brought against it, incurring costs and attorney fees in its defense and also in suing the indemnitor, Amtech.

2015(Continental Heller, supra, 53 CalApp.4th at p. 509; italics omitted.) In that case, Continental Heller had settled a third party claim brought against it, incurring costs and attorney fees in its defense and also in suing the indemnitor, Amtech.

2025As our Supreme Court has stated in connection with the duty to defend, “[a]n insurer must defend against a suit even ‘ “where the evidence suggests, but does not conclusively establish, that the loss is not covered.” ’ ” (Hartford, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 287.) Any doubt must be resolved in favor of the insured (ibid.), such that the insurer is excused from defending against a third party claim “only when ‘ “the third party complaint can by no conceivable theory raise a single issue which could bring it within the policy coverage.” ’ ” (Id. at p. 288, italics added; see also Montrose, supra, 6

2025Co. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 498, 525 .) If there is evidence that settlement could feasibly be negotiated, courts look to whether the insurer acted reasonably in responding to settlement overtures. “‘[T]he critical issue [is] the reasonableness of the insurer’s conduct under the facts of the particular case.’ [Citation.] To hold an insurer liable for bad faith in failing to settle a third party claim, the evidence must establish that the failure to settle was unreasonable.” (Pinto v. Farmers Ins.

2025(Alki Partners, LP v. DB Fund Services, LLC (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 574, 600-602 (Alki); Carr Business Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Chowchilla (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 14, 20 .) But section 14.2.5 does not focus exclusively on third-party claims.

2023(Rideau v. Stewart Title of California, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1286, 1294 .) “Generally, the inclusion of attorney fees as an item of loss in a third-party claim-indemnity provision does not constitute a provision for the award of attorney fees in an action on the contract which is required to trigger section 1717.” (Carr Business Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Chowchilla (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 14, 20 (Carr).) 25 The court in Alki Partners explained that in general, an indemnification provision “allows one party to recover costs incurred defending actions by third parties, not attorney fees

2023For example, defendants who are not signatories to an arbitration agreement, but who are acting as agents for the party to the arbitration provision, may be allowed to enforce the arbitration clause.” (Valley Casework, Inc. v. Comfort Construction, Inc. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 1013, 1021 ; see also Thomas v. Westlake (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 605, 614 [where “a defendant acted as an agent of a party to an arbitration agreement, the defendant may enforce the agreement even though the defendant is not a party thereto”].) In Berman v. Dean Witter & Co., Inc. (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 999 , for example, the

2013(See Thomas v. Westlake, supra, 204 Cal.App.4th at pp. 614–615 [a defendant‘s agent is not a third party because ―a plaintiff‘s allegations of an agency relationship among defendants is sufficient to allow the alleged agents to invoke the benefit of an arbitration agreement executed by their principal even though the agents are not parties to the agreement‖]; Laswell v. AG Seal Beach, LLC, supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1407–1408 [defendants who owned and managed a health care facility were not third parties because there was a sufficient identity of parties to bind them to the arbitration agre

2021(Torjesen, supra, 1 Cal.App.5th at p. 113 .) The Enforcement of Judgments Law, however, provides that, “[a]fter the death of the judgment debtor, enforcement of a judgment against property in the judgment debtor’s estate is governed by the Probate Code, and not by this title.” (Code Civ.

2021(Kabran v. Sharp Memorial Hospital (2017) 2 Cal.5th 330, 337-342 ; Ironridge Global IV, Ltd. v. ScripsAmerica, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 259, 267 ; Conservatorship of O’Connor (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1092 ; see Torjesen v. Mansdorf (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 111, 116 [trial court’s error in allowing a judgment creditor to invalidate a third party claim under the Enforcement of Judgments Law, rather than requiring the judgment creditor to proceed in probate court as required by the Probate Code, was only an act in excess of jurisdiction].) 8 B.

2013The court reasoned the insured driver had no bad faith claim at all against the rental car insurer – hence no shoes into which the 11 regular insurer could step – because: (1) the rental car insurer did defend the insured; (2) it settled within its policy limit; and (3) the insured – and the italics are in the original – “agreed to the settlement.” (United Services, supra, 94 Cal.App.4th at p. 646 .) The last element in particular was stressed by the United Services court, in articulating a bright- line rule: “Although we have found no case on point, we conclude that when an insured agrees to

2010(United Services, supra, 94 Cal.App.4th at p. 646 .) The appellate court concluded that “when an insured agrees to an insurer’s settlement of a third party claim, the insured waives any right to maintain a bad faith action against the insurer based on the settlement, unless the insured’s agreement to the settlement was procured by coercion, duress, fraud or some other improper means.” (United Services, supra, 94 Cal.App.4th *1526 at p. 646.) The appellate court explained that “[a] finding of implied waiver under these circumstances accords with the principle that ‘ “California courts will find

2013(Ballagh v. Williams (1942) 50 Cal.App.2d 303, 304 [petition filed two days late under version of statute requiring petition to be filed within 10 days of delivery of claim to levying officer]; Michael v. Burge (1959) 176 Cal.App.2d 128 , 130- 132 [follows Ballagh in reversing court that reached merits of untimely petition]; see also Commercial Credit Plan, Inc. v. Gomez (1969) 276 Cal.App.2d Supp. 831 , 834 [noting the law is “clear that when 15 days have run from the filing of the third-party claim and no petition for hearing has been filed, the trial court in which the suit was brought lose

1959Appellants cite Ballagh v. Williams, 50 Cal.App.2d 303 [ 122 P.2d 919 ], in which it was held that unless the petition for hearing on a third party claim is filed within 10 days the court is without jurisdiction to determine the merits of the claim.

1995Bank v. Kinslow (1937) 8 Cal.2d 339, 345 [ 65 P.2d 796 ]; see City of Torrance v. Castner (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 76 [ 120 Cal.Rptr. 23 ].) The third party claim procedures are optional and the third party does not waive a superior interest in the property levied upon by failure to make such a third party claim.

1995Bank v. Kinslow (1937) 8 Cal.2d 339, 345 [ 65 P.2d 796 ]; see City of Torrance v. Castner (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 76 [ 120 Cal.Rptr. 23 ].) The third party claim procedures are optional and the third party does not waive a superior interest in the property levied upon by failure to make such a third party claim.