In Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, the high court explained that "the good faith provision of section 877 mandates that the courts review agreements purportedly made under its aegis to insure that such settlements appropriately balance the contribution statute's dual objectives." (Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 494.) In Tech-Bilt, the California Supreme Court interpreted the statutory term "good faith" in section 877.6 to require the trial court to determine, in cases where the plaintiff settles with one or more, but not all, of the defendants, whether the amount of the settlement is within the "reasonable range" of the settling tortfeasor or co-obligor's "proportional share of comparative liability for the plaintiff's injuries." (Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d at pp. 498-499.) Noting that "formulation of a precise definition of good faith is neither possible nor practicable" (Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 495), the Tech-Bilt court held that the intent and policies underlying section 877.6 require that a trial court consider the following nonexclusive factors (Tech-Bilt factors) in determining whether a settlement is in good faith within the meaning of that section: (1) "a rough approximation of the plaintiffs' total recovery"; (2) "the settlor's proportionate liability"; (3) "the amount paid in settlement"; (4) "the allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs"; (5) "a recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found liable after a trial"; (6) "the financial conditions and insurance policy limits of settling defendants"; (7) "the existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of nonsettling defendants." (Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 499) Tech-Bilt emphasized that a good faith settlement does not require a perfect or nearly perfect apportionment of liability, and a settling defendant may properly pay less than its proportional share of the anticipated damages. (Abbott Ford, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 875.) In order to encourage settlement, "what is required is simply that the settlement not be grossly disproportionate to the settlor's fair share" of liability. (Id. at pp. 874-875.) This determination is made based on the information available at the time of the settlement. (Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 499.) In Tech-Bilt, the Supreme Court majority explained that section 877.6(b) contemplates that a trial court may make a good faith settlement determination on the basis of affidavits and declarations and urged trial judges to draw on their own personal experience and that of experts in the field. (Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 500)