Equitable Subrogation Claim – Defensed

Carmelita Braganza, et al. v. Pulte Homes Corporation (MCC1300147)
Hon. Craig G. Riemer
Riverside Superior

TOPIC: Contracts
SUB TOPIC: Construction Contract
FURTHER DESCRIPTION: Equitable Subrogation

BENCH DECISION: Defense

ATTORNEY:
Plaintiff-in-Intervention – Ray Brown (The Aguilera Law Group, Costa Mesa) for St. Paul Mercury Insurance. Intervener-Defendant – Ryan W. Baldino , Wallace W. Hammons (Hammons & Baldino LLP, Torrance) for Milgard Manufacturing, and Masco Contractor Services of California.
Intervener Defendant – Larry Letofsky (Letofsky & McClain) for CBR Electric.
Intervener Defendant – Cheryl Kirkpatrick (Horton, OBrecht ,Kirkpatrick & Martna) for the Jasper Companies.
Intervener Defendant – Wendy Wilcox (Skane Wilcox LLP) for Petersen Dean, Inc.
Intervener Defendant – Caroline Hopkins (The Law Offices of Kevin Pagan) for PreCoat Systems, Inc.

FACTS: Pulte Home Corp. was developer, owner, and general contractor of three single-family residential projects. Two groups of owners/buyers of homes sued Pulte and the subcontractors for damages for alleged construction defects. Pulte tendered its defense to, inter alia, St. Paul. St. Paul accepted tender pursuant to additional-insured endorsement.
Pulte cross-complained against the subcontractors on the projects. St. Paul paid fees and expenses incurred by Pulte. St. Paul filed a complaint-in-intervention against the subcontractors.

PLAINTIFF-IN-INTERVENTION’S CONTENTIONS: St, Paul contended it was entitled to equitable subrogation as to six defendant subcontractors.
DEFENDANTS-IN-INTERVENTIONS’ CONTENTIONS: The subcontractors contended that St. Paul was not entitled to equitable subrogation.

RESULT: The court found that St. Paul was not entitled to equitable subrogation, and that the subcontractors were entitled to recover their costs of the suit.

FILING DATE: Feb. 5, 2013.
RESULT DATE: Feb. 1, 2017

CURRENT: St. Paul is currently appealing the decision.