Amos & Andrews relies on Tatum v. Armor Elevator Co

In Amos & Andrews relies on Tatum v. Armor Elevator Co. (1988) 203 Cal. App. 3d 1315, the plaintiff brought her action against defendants Gerson Bakar and Associates (Bakar), Center Street Associates (Center) and Armor Elevator Company, Inc. (Armor). Bakar and Center settled with the plaintiff and the case proceeded to trial on the plaintiff's negligence action against nonsettling Armor and on Bakar and Armor's cross-actions against each other for equitable indemnity. ( Id. at p. 1317.) The jury returned special verdicts indicating that neither defendant was negligent. The judgment also declared that both defendants would take nothing on their cross-complaints. ( Id. at pp. 1317-1318.) Bakar appealed the portion of the judgment denying indemnification. It argued that Armor would have been found liable under instructions Bakar had proposed, thereby enabling Bakar to recover some or all of its settlement payment. Armor responded that Bakar lacked standing to appeal because the judgment was favorable to Bakar in all respects. ( Id. at p. 1318.) The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, holding that a settling defendant does not have to demonstrate its liability before pursuing an indemnification claim against a nonsettling defendant. ( Id. at p. 1320.) The court reasoned: "A settling defendant's right to appeal cannot be predicated upon a finding of fault because . . . fault is not an essential element of the underlying claim." ( Id. at p. 1321.) The court reiterated the principle of equitable indemnity: " 'The basis for indemnity is restitution, and the concept that one person is unjustly enriched at the expense of another when the other discharges liability that it should be his responsibility to pay. . . .' " ( Id. at p. 1320, quoting Rest.2d Torts, 886B, com. on subd. (1), pp. 345-346.) The court opined that the policy of equitable apportionment of responsibility would be defeated if Bakar could not seek indemnity. (Tatum, at p. 1320.)