Opinski Construction v. All West Construction
Appellant, (Opinski), was hired by the City of Modesto (City) as the general contractor for construction of a new police headquarters building. Opinski was insured by appellant, Pennsylvania General Insurance Company (Penn. General). When defects were found in the construction, the City made claims against Opinski which were referred to binding arbitration. Opinski and Penn. General settled the City's negligence claims in the arbitration for $500,000, and then filed the present action against the subcontractors on the project, including respondent, All West Construction (All West), seeking indemnity and subrogation. All West moved for summary judgment against both Opinski and Penn. General, and on the same day moved for terminating sanctions against Opinski. The trial court granted each of the motions. On appeal, Opinski and Penn. General contend it was error to grant the summary judgment motions because All West failed to meet its initial burden as the moving party. Additionally, Opinski contends the court erred in granting terminating sanctions against it. As more fully discussed below, we agree that the trial court should not have granted summary judgment against the appellants because All West failed to meet its burden of showing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. At the same time, court conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing terminating sanctions against Opinski. Accordingly, the judgment entered in favor of All West against Opinski will be affirmed, but reversed as to Penn. General.
Comments on Opinski Construction v. All West Construction