Tentative Ruling: Michael Hedrick et al vs Michael Frazier et al

Case Number

23CV02530

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Tue, 10/20/2026 - 08:30

Nature of Proceedings

Motion and Objection Re Good Faith Settlement

Tentative Ruling

Tentative Ruling:

For all the reasons discussed below, the court finds the settlement described in the Milguard’s application was made and entered into in good faith between the parties within the meaning and effect of Code of Civil Procedure sections 877 and 877.6. The court consequently grants Milguard’s application for good faith settlement and denies Specialty Glass’s motion contesting the application. 

The parties are instructed to appear at the hearing for oral argument. Appearance by Zoom Videoconference is optional and does not require the filing of Judicial Council form RA-010, Notice of Remote Appearance. (See Remote Appearance (Zoom) Information | Superior Court of California | County of Santa Barbara.)

Background:

This action arises from claims related to water intrusion following the installation of window and door products. The alleged damage including health claims arising from mold exposure at a single-family home. Milguard Manufacturing LLC manufactured the window and door products. Michael Frazier dba Specialty Glass & Mirror Co. installed them. Plaintiffs assert the windows leaked, resulting in water intrusion at or around the windows and doors causing damage, including mold growth resulting in property damage and bodily injury. Upon inspection, Specialty Glass cited a defect in the windows as the cause of the water intrusion. Milguard performed an inspection and concluded that faulty installation was the cause of the water intrusion.

Plaintiffs filed their complaint on June 13, 2023 alleging causes of action for: (1) negligence in the design and installation of the windows (against Specialty Glass and Milgard); (2) Strict Liability (against Specialty Glass and Milgard); (2) negligence for improper installation (against Specialty Glass); (4) violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and Breach of Implied Warranty (against Specialty Glass and Milguard); (5) Violation of Song- Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and Breach of Express Warranty (against Specialty Glass and Milguard); (6) breach of contract (against Allstate); (7) duty to defend (against Allstate); (8) Violation of Business and Professions Code 17200 et. seq. (against Allstate).

Milguard settled with plaintiffs for $3,750.00. It filed an application for determination of good faith settlement on July 10, 2026. Specialty Glass filed a motion contesting the application on July 20, 2026. Milguard filed its opposition on October 6, 2026. No reply has been filed. 

In an action in which it is alleged that two or more parties are joint tortfeasors or co-obligors on a contract debt, a party to that action may seek a determination from the court that the settlement between the plaintiff or other claimant and one or more alleged tortfeasors or co-obligors was made in good faith. (CCP § 877.6(a).) Two procedures are available to obtain a court determination of the “good faith” issue: either an application, which may be followed by a motion contesting the application; or a regular motion filed by the party seeking approval. (Weil & Brown, Civ. Proc. Before Trial (TRG), ¶ 12:841.) Here, the application procedure has been employed, and Specialty Glass has filed a motion contesting the application.

The California Supreme Court in Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Assoc. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, established the standard for determining whether a settlement was made in good faith. Under Tech-Bilt, the following factors are considered: (1) a rough approximation of plaintiff's total recovery and the settlor's proportionate liability; (2) the amount paid in settlement; (3) the allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs; (4) a recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found liable after a trial; (5) the financial conditions and insurance policy limits of settling defendants; and (6) the existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of the non-settling defendants. (Id. at 498-501.) Additionally, the evaluation must be made based on the information available at the time of settlement. (Id. at 599.)

If the good faith settlement is contested, section 877.6, subdivision (d), sets forth a workable ground rule for the hearing by placing the burden of proving the lack of good faith on the contesting party. Once there is a showing made by the settlor of the settlement, the burden of proof on the issue of good faith shifts to the non-settlor who asserts that the settlement was not made in good faith. If contested, declarations by the non-settlor should be filed which in many cases could require the moving party to file responsive counterdeclarations to negate the lack of good faith asserted by the non-settling contesting party. (City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261.)

Specialty Glass’s motion focuses on the adequacy of Milguard’s showing in support of its application for good faith determination, arguing that it “supplies no analytical basis upon

which the Court can determine whether $3,750 bears any reasonable relationship to plaintiffs' claimed recovery or Milgard's potential share of responsibility.” That’s fine as far as it goes, but under Grand Terrace, the contesting party has an obligation to show that the settlement was not made in good faith, which it has not done.

In any event, Specialty Glass’s motion contesting the settlement characterizes the issue presented as follows: “whether Milgard has provided the Court with sufficient information to independently determine that $3,750 bears a reasonable relationship to

Milgard's potential proportional liability before extinguishing Specialty Glass's statutory indemnity rights.” The ultimate determinant of good faith is whether the settlement is grossly disproportionate to what a reasonable person at the time of settlement would estimate the settlor's liability to be. (City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1262.) Settlor's percentage of liability is the touchstone question to be considered by the trial court in a contested good faith settlement hearing. (Ibid.)

Here, Milguard presented the declaration of Jimmy Cruz, an employee with Fenestration Testing Laboratory. He observed the water testing conducted by plaintiff’s expert and reports that “[a]ll windows passed the sill track test and the tests did not reveal window product leaks at any windows” and “[s]everal of the window and wall assemblies experienced some form of leak [in response to spray testing] (including a roof leak), but none of these leaks were related to the window product.” (Cruz Decl., ¶¶ 3-4.) He concludes: “No Milgard products exhibited any product leaks. Plaintiffs’ water testing did not reveal any leaks at any of the Milgard window or door products themselves.” (Id. at ¶ 4.) This evidence suggests that Milguard was not at fault for any damages suffered by plaintiffs, placing Milguard’s percentage of liability at or near zero.

In response to discovery, plaintiffs assert their damages amount to $37,866.90, which includes the costs of replacement windows and installation, mold remediation, and billed medical expenses. The settlement is thus approximately 10% of plaintiffs estimated recovery. The supporting declaration thus provides a basic showing of good faith. Milguard has shown that recovery at trial could be significantly less for plaintiffs as there is a real dispute about causation. The fact that recovery could be zero strongly suggests the instant settlement is within the ballpark.

The nonsettling tortfeasor (Specialty Glass) has the burden of demonstrating that the settlement is so far ‘out of the ballpark’ as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of the statute. (Tech-Bilt at 499-500.) It has not done so on this record. The court thus grants Milguard’s application and denies Specialty Glass’s motion contesting the application.