Hartford Ins. v. Rush Truck Centers
Hartford Fire Insurance Co. (Hartford) filed the present subrogation action against PACCAR Inc. (PACCAR or Peterbilt) and Rush Truck Centers of California, Inc. (Rush) (collectively defendants). Hartford seeks to recover approximately $156,518.40, or the amount paid its insureds, Dix Leasing (Dix) and All American Asphalt (All American), for property losses they incurred as a result of an August 2002 fire that severely damaged two Peterbilt trucks. PACCAR manufactured the trucks and Rush, a retail seller, sold the trucks to Dix. At the time of the fire, All American was leasing the trucks from Dix. In its complaint, Hartford claims that a manufacturing or design defect caused the fire.
Defendants moved for summary judgment. They claimed that on November 22, 2002, after Hartford indemnified its insureds but before Hartford notified defendants of its subrogation claim, Dix settled with defendants in exchange for PACCARs payment of $85,000 and Dixs release of defendants from any and all claims related to the fire. The trial court granted the motion, concluding that (1) Dixs release of any and all claims barred Hartfords subrogation claim, and (2) there was no triable issue of material fact concerning whether defendants knew of Hartfords subrogation claim at the time they entered into the settlement agreement with Dix and obtained Dixs release of any and all claims related to the fire. Accordingly, the trial court entered judgment in favor of defendants on Hartfords complaint.
Hartford appeals and we affirm. On independent review, Court agree with the trial court that Dixs release of defendants from any and all claims relating to the fire bars Hartfords subrogation claim. Furthermore, it is undisputed that Hartford did not notify defendants of its subrogation claim or that it had paid its insureds for any losses to the fire until March 2003, several months after defendants and Dix signed the settlement agreement and release on November 22, 2002. Finally, there is no triable issue of fact concerning whether defendants knew of Hartfords subrogation claim, or that Hartford had indemnified its insureds for any losses resulting from the fire, at the time defendants and Dix signed the settlement agreement and release. The judgment is affirmed.
Comments on Hartford Ins. v. Rush Truck Centers