In Turcon Construction, Inc. v. Norton-Villiers, Ltd. (1983) 139 Cal. App. 3d 280, the issue raised was whether an action for indemnity could be pursued by one alleged tortfeasor against another after the second has settled with the plaintiff or whether such action would be barred by subdivision (c) of section 877.6 ( Turcon, supra, at p. 281.) Section 877.6, subdivision (c) provides: "A determination by the court that the settlement was made in good faith shall bar any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor or co-obligor for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault." While Turcon recognized that the phrase "joint tortfeasors" embraces "joint, concurrent and successive tortfeasors" ( id. at pp. 283-284), it also acknowledged the basic premise which supports our decision herein: "if there were in fact two separate and distinct torts committed," there would be no right to indemnity under subdivision (c) of section 877.6.