KPI Ultrasound v. 3 Day Blinds
Filed 5/5/06 KPI Ultrasound v. 3 Day Blinds CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
KPI ULTRASOUND, INC., Cross-complainant and Appellant, v. 3 DAY BLINDS, INC., Cross-defendant and Respondent. | E038652 (Super.Ct.No. RIC387597) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Dallas Holmes, Judge. Affirmed.
Reid & Hellyer, David G. Moore, and Michael G. Kerbs, for Cross-complainant and Appellant.
Bragg & Kuluva and Kenyon M. Young, for Cross-defendant and Respondent.
1. Introduction
Cross-complainant and appellant KPI Ultrasound, Inc. (KPI) appeals after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of cross-defendant and respondent 3 Day Blinds, Inc. (3 Day Blinds) on KPI's cross-complaint for indemnity on an underlying tort claim. We affirm the judgment.
2. Factual and Procedural Background
The underlying facts are essentially undisputed. KPI contracted with 3 Day Blinds to install some blinds at its new office building. The only party with whom KPI had contact was 3 Day Blinds. KPI paid in advance for the blinds and installation. An employee of 3 Day Blinds measured the windows, and assured KPI that 3 Day Blinds would take care of the installation. In fact, 3 Day Blinds hired a two-brother team of independent contractors, Richard D. Bockman and Jeff Bockman, to install the blinds.
The Bockmans installed most of the blinds, but they did not have the proper equipment to reach one of the windows. KPI called 3 Day Blinds to complete the job. In turn, 3 Day Blinds had called Jeff Bockman to finish the installation, but he stated that he was unable to complete the job because the window was too high. Richard D. Bockman stated, however, that they had a scaffold they could use. Both Bockmans stated that they felt pressured by 3 Day Blinds to finish the installation, even though they did not have the proper equipment.
On September 10, 2002, about one month after the first installation, the Bockmans returned to KPI's premises to finish the job. Richard Bockman placed a ladder on top of a scaffold to reach the window. Richard Bockman fell approximately 30 feet from the top of the ladder and was severely injured. Richard Bockman filed an action against KPI, 3 Day Blinds, and his brother Jeff Bockman.
KPI cross-complained against 3 Day Blinds for implied indemnity and declaratory relief. 3 Day Blinds filed an answer, claiming that it had no duty to indemnify KPI.
KPI moved for summary judgment against plaintiff Richard Bockman on the complaint. The trial court granted the motion, determining that KPI was without fault for Bockman's injuries. At the time the trial court granted summary judgment for KPI, KPI had incurred $21,550.48 in attorney fees and costs. KPI then made a formal demand to 3 Day Blinds for reimbursement of these expenses.
Some time later, 3 Day Blinds gave notice that it had settled the underlying complaint with plaintiff Richard Bockman for $5,000. The trial court found that KPI's cross-complaint could not be disposed of by a determination of good faith settlement with Richard Bockman.
Thereafter, 3 Day Blinds filed a motion for summary judgment on KPI's cross-complaint; 3 Day Blinds contended that KPI could not recover on its claim for indemnity because it allegedly failed to tender the defense of the case to 3 Day Blinds.
The trial court granted 3 Day Blinds's motion for summary judgment, and gave judgment against KPI on its claim for indemnity. KPI appeals.
1. Analysis
A. Standard of Review
â€