Lantz Security Systems v. Anderson-Barrows Metals
Filed 5/18/06 Lantz Security Systems v. Anderson-Barrows Metals CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
LANTZ SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., Cross-complainant and Appellant, v. ANDERSON-BARROWS METALS CORPORATION, Cross-defendant and Respondent. | B181675 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MC011024) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Joseph R. Kalin, Judge. (Retired Judge of the L.A. Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Reversed.
Law Offices of Roy Huntsman, Roy Huntsman; Esner & Chang, Stuart B. Esner, Andrew N. Chang; Berman, Berman & Berman, Evan Berman; Law Offices of Angela L. Gilmartin and Angela L. Gilmartin for Cross-complainant and Appellant.
Ford, Walker, Haggerty & Behar, Robert L. Reisinger and James O. Miller for Cross-defendant and Respondent.
_______________________________________
Lantz Security Systems, Inc., appeals from the judgment entered following a court trial in favor of Anderson-Barrows Metals Corporation (ABMC) on Lantz's cross-complaint for express contractual indemnity and declaratory relief that ABMC had a contractual duty to defend and indemnify Lantz regarding claims arising from the personal injuries sustained by Francisco Villa, ABMC's employee, in a vehicle collision. Lantz contends the trial court erred in finding that Lantz was foreclosed from enforcing its contractual rights to a defense and indemnity because it failed to obtain insurance from an admitted insurer and the insolvency of its insurer constituted a failure of consideration. Lantz further contends Workers' Compensation is not the exclusive remedy for ABMC's liability for Francisco's[1] injuries. We agree and reverse the judgment.
BACKGROUND
On October 8, 1998, Francisco was injured while operating a forklift at ABMC's facility when Harry Hope backed a tractor trailer rig into Francisco. On October 5, 1999, Francisco and Maria Villa filed a complaint against Hope and R& M Services, Incorporated, the rig's owner. In April 2002, American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company filed a complaint in intervention, naming Lantz as a defendant. In July 2002, Hope filed an indemnity cross-complaint against Lantz. On August 8, 2002, Lantz was named as a Doe defendant in the Villas' complaint. Its liability was premised on its failure to warn Hope of Francisco's presence. Lantz filed its answer on September 30, 2002.
On December 17, 2002, Lantz filed its cross-complaint against ABMC for express contractual indemnity and declaratory relief. On February 3, 2003, ABMC filed its answer, which consisted of a general denial and affirmative defenses, including one alleging Lantz's material breach of contract (12th) and the exclusivity of Workers' Compensation (15th & 16th).
Pursuant to the April 1, 1998 contract between ABMC and Lantz, Lantz's â€
