comparative equitable indemnity is designed doctrine in California

2011(Expressions at Rancho Niguel Assn. v. Ahmanson Developments, Inc. (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1139-1143 [ 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 895 ]; see Gentry Construction Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 177 [ 260 Cal.Rptr. 421 ]; GEM Developers, supra, at p. 426 .) “The doctrine of comparative equitable indemnity is designed to do equity among defendants.” (GEM Developers, supra, 213 Cal.App.3d at p. 426 .) The purpose of equitable indemnification is to avoid the unfairness, under the theory of joint and several liability, of holding one defendant liable for the plaintiff’s entire loss while allowi

2008With limited exception, there must be some basis for tort liability against the proposed indemnitor. [Citation.]” (BFGC Architects Planners, Inc. v. Forcum/Mackey Construction, Inc. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 848 , 852 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 721 ].) In GEM Developers v. Hallcraft Homes of San Diego, Inc. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 419, 426-427 [ 261 Cal.Rptr. 626 ] (GEM Developers), this court outlined how the doctrine of equitable indemnity applies in the context of a construction defect case: “[T]he doctrine of comparative equitable indemnity is designed to do equity among defendants.

2008Great Western asserts that although Roel cross-complained against it for breach of contract, and not indemnity or apportionment, the action was in substance for apportionment since it “was based on fault established against Great Western.” Great Western cites Vandenberg v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 815, 828 [ 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 366 , 982 P.2d 229 ], for the proposition that “when there is damage to property, the focus of the inquiry should be the nature of the risk or peril that caused the injury and the specific policy language, not the form of action brought by the injured party.” In GEM

2008Great Western asserts that although Roel cross-complained against it for breach of contract, and not indemnity or apportionment, the action was in substance for apportionment since it “was based on fault established against Great Western.” Great Western cites Vandenberg v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 815, 828 [ 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 366 , 982 P.2d 229 ], for the proposition that “when there is damage to property, the focus of the inquiry should be the nature of the risk or peril that caused the injury and the specific policy language, not the form of action brought by the injured party.” In GEM

2011(Expressions at Rancho Niguel Assn. v. Ahmanson Developments, Inc. (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1139-1143 [ 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 895 ]; see Gentry Construction Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 177 [ 260 Cal.Rptr. 421 ]; GEM Developers, supra, at p. 426 .) “The doctrine of comparative equitable indemnity is designed to do equity among defendants.” (GEM Developers, supra, 213 Cal.App.3d at p. 426 .) The purpose of equitable indemnification is to avoid the unfairness, under the theory of joint and several liability, of holding one defendant liable for the plaintiff’s entire loss while allowi

2011(Expressions at Rancho Niguel Assn. v. Ahmanson Developments, Inc. (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1139-1143 [ 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 895 ]; see Gentry Construction Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 177 [ 260 Cal.Rptr. 421 ]; GEM Developers, supra, at p. 426 .) “The doctrine of comparative equitable indemnity is designed to do equity among defendants.” (GEM Developers, supra, 213 Cal.App.3d at p. 426 .) The purpose of equitable indemnification is to avoid the unfairness, under the theory of joint and several liability, of holding one defendant liable for the plaintiff’s entire loss while allowi

2011(Expressions at Rancho Niguel Assn. v. Ahmanson Developments, Inc. (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1139-1143 [ 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 895 ]; see Gentry Construction Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 177 [ 260 Cal.Rptr. 421 ]; GEM Developers, supra, at p. 426 .) “The doctrine of comparative equitable indemnity is designed to do equity among defendants.” (GEM Developers, supra, 213 Cal.App.3d at p. 426 .) The purpose of equitable indemnification is to avoid the unfairness, under the theory of joint and several liability, of holding one defendant liable for the plaintiff’s entire loss while allowi

2011(Expressions at Rancho Niguel Assn. v. Ahmanson Developments, Inc. (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1139-1143 [ 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 895 ]; see Gentry Construction Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 177 [ 260 Cal.Rptr. 421 ]; GEM Developers, supra, at p. 426 .) “The doctrine of comparative equitable indemnity is designed to do equity among defendants.” (GEM Developers, supra, 213 Cal.App.3d at p. 426 .) The purpose of equitable indemnification is to avoid the unfairness, under the theory of joint and several liability, of holding one defendant liable for the plaintiff’s entire loss while allowi

2008Under the equitable indemnity doctrine, defendants are entitled to seek apportionment of loss between the wrongdoers in proportion to their relative culpability so there will be ‘equitable sharing of loss between multiple tortfeasors.’ [Citation.] The purpose of equitable indemnification is to avoid the unfairness, under joint and several liability theory, of holding one defendant liable for the plaintiff’s entire loss while allowing another responsible defendant to escape ‘ “scot free.” ’ [Citation.] It is an extension of the comparative fault doctrine which allowed loss to be apportioned bet

2008Under the equitable indemnity doctrine, defendants are entitled to seek apportionment of loss between the wrongdoers in proportion to their relative culpability so there will be ‘equitable sharing of loss between multiple tortfeasors.’ [Citation.] The purpose of equitable indemnification is to avoid the unfairness, under joint and several liability theory, of holding one defendant liable for the plaintiff’s entire loss while allowing another responsible defendant to escape ‘ “scot free.” ’ [Citation.] It is an extension of the comparative fault doctrine which allowed loss to be apportioned bet

2008Under the equitable indemnity doctrine, defendants are entitled to seek apportionment of loss between the wrongdoers in proportion to their relative culpability so there will be ‘equitable sharing of loss between multiple tortfeasors.’ [Citation.] The purpose of equitable indemnification is to avoid the unfairness, under joint and several liability theory, of holding one defendant liable for the plaintiff’s entire loss while allowing another responsible defendant to escape ‘ “scot free.” ’ [Citation.] It is an extension of the comparative fault doctrine which allowed loss to be apportioned bet

2008Under the equitable indemnity doctrine, defendants are entitled to seek apportionment of loss between the wrongdoers in proportion to their relative culpability so there will be ‘equitable sharing of loss between multiple tortfeasors.’ [Citation.] The purpose of equitable indemnification is to avoid the unfairness, under joint and several liability theory, of holding one defendant liable for the plaintiff’s entire loss while allowing another responsible defendant to escape ‘ “scot free.” ’ [Citation.] It is an extension of the comparative fault doctrine which allowed loss to be apportioned bet

1989Under the equitable indemnity doctrine, defendants are entitled to seek apportionment of loss between the wrongdoers in proportion to their relative culpability so there will be “equitable sharing of loss between multiple tortfeasors.” (American Motorcycle Assn. v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 578, 595, 597-598 [ 146 Cal.Rptr. 182 , 578 P.2d 899 ], italics in original.) The purpose of equitable indemnification is to avoid the unfairness, under joint and several liability theory, of holding one defendant liable for the plaintiff’s entire loss while allowing another responsible defendant to e

1989Under the equitable indemnity doctrine, defendants are entitled to seek apportionment of loss between the wrongdoers in proportion to their relative culpability so there will be “equitable sharing of loss between multiple tortfeasors.” (American Motorcycle Assn. v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 578, 595, 597-598 [ 146 Cal.Rptr. 182 , 578 P.2d 899 ], italics in original.) The purpose of equitable indemnification is to avoid the unfairness, under joint and several liability theory, of holding one defendant liable for the plaintiff’s entire loss while allowing another responsible defendant to e