MESOTHELIOMA | 2026-10-24

Good-Faith Settlement Determinations in California Asbestos Cases: How Tech-Bilt and Code of Civil Procedure §§ 877 and 877.6 Shape Who Pays in Mesothelioma Litigation

Mesothelioma cases involve many defendants, and they settle one by one. California’s good-faith settlement statute lets a settling defendant buy its peace — cutting off claims for contribution and indemnity from the others — but only if the court finds the settlement was made in "good faith" under the Tech-Bilt factors. That determination decides how the remaining defendants’ exposure is reduced and who ultimately pays.

Asbestos and mesothelioma litigation is multi-defendant by nature: a single plaintiff may have been exposed to asbestos from the products of dozens of manufacturers, suppliers, and premises owners over a working lifetime, and those defendants rarely resolve a case all at once. They settle one at a t

In a mesothelioma case, settlement is not a single event but a sequence. As each defendant evaluates its exposure, it may choose to settle, and when it does, it wants certainty — assurance that paying the plaintiff ends its involvement for good, including any risk that a co-defendant will later drag it back in seeking contribution. California's good-faith settlement statute provides that certainty, but it conditions it on judicial approval. The resulting good-faith determination is one of the most practically important events in multi-defendant asbestos litigation, because it fixes how much the remaining defendants' liability is reduced and whether the settling defendant is truly out of the case. Understanding the statute and the Tech-Bilt factors is essential for plaintiffs and defendants alike.

Why Good-Faith Settlement Matters in Asbestos Cases

Because mesothelioma plaintiffs are typically exposed to many defendants’ products, these cases are the paradigm of joint and several (as to economic damages) and apportioned (as to non-economic damages) liability. Defendants face the risk that, after one of them settles or goes to trial, others will seek contribution or indemnity to spread the loss. The good-faith settlement statute exists to encourage settlement while ensuring equitable sharing of liability. It does so by giving a settling defendant that acts in good faith immunity from contribution and indemnity claims, while protecting non-settling defendants through a setoff that reduces the plaintiff's claims against them by the settlement amount. Without this framework, no rational defendant would settle early, because settling would not buy peace.

The Statutory Framework: §§ 877 and 877.6

Two statutes work together. Code of Civil Procedure § 877 provides that when a release or settlement is given in good faith to one of several defendants or co-obligors, it reduces the claims against the others by the amount stipulated in the release or the consideration paid (whichever is greater), and it discharges the settling defendant from liability for contribution to the others. Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6 provides the procedure: any party may seek a court determination that a settlement was made in good faith, and a determination of good faith bars any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor from further claims against the settling party for equitable contribution or equitable (comparative) indemnity. A § 877.6 motion is the vehicle through which settling defendants secure their peace and non-settling defendants either acquiesce or challenge the settlement as not in good faith.

The Tech-Bilt Factors

The meaning of "good faith" was defined by the California Supreme Court in Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488. The Court held that a good-faith settlement must be reasonable in light of the settling defendant’s proportionate liability — the settlement figure must be within the "ballpark" of what the settling defendant would likely owe after a trial, discounted by the risk and expense of litigation. Tech-Bilt identified several factors courts weigh: (1) a rough approximation of the plaintiff’s total recovery and the settlor’s proportionate liability; (2) the amount paid in settlement; (3) the allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs; (4) a recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than if found liable after trial; (5) the settling defendant’s financial condition and insurance limits; and (6) the existence of any collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed at injuring the non-settling defendants. The touchstone is whether the settlement is so far out of the ballpark in relation to these factors as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of the statute.

The "Ballpark" Standard in Practice

The "ballpark" concept is central and forgiving. A good-faith settlement does not require a perfect match to the settling defendant’s eventual proportionate share; it requires only that the amount be reasonable given the information available at the time, the uncertainties of trial, and the settlor’s potential exposure. Courts recognize that a settling defendant legitimately pays less than its maximum possible liability precisely because settlement eliminates risk for both sides. The practical consequence is that most settlements are approved: a non-settling defendant challenging a settlement must show that it is grossly disproportionate to the settlor’s fair share — not merely that it would have preferred a larger payment. The burden framework matters: once a good-faith motion is made, a party opposing it bears the burden of proving the settlement was not in good faith.

The Setoff: How Non-Settling Defendants Are Protected

The protection for non-settling defendants comes through the setoff under § 877. When one defendant settles in good faith, the plaintiff’s claims against the remaining defendants are reduced by the settlement amount (as to the shared damages). This prevents a double recovery and ensures the plaintiff does not collect more than the full value of the claim. In mesothelioma cases with many settlements, the setoffs accumulate, and by the time a case reaches trial against the remaining defendants, the plaintiff’s recoverable damages have already been reduced by the sum of the good-faith settlements. The interaction of the setoff with California’s rule that non-economic damages are several-only (apportioned by fault) while economic damages remain joint and several makes the allocation of settlement proceeds between economic and non-economic categories an important and sometimes contested detail.

The Bar on Contribution and Indemnity

The other half of the bargain is the bar on contribution and indemnity. Once a court determines a settlement was made in good faith, § 877.6 bars all other joint tortfeasors from pursuing the settling defendant for equitable contribution or comparative equitable indemnity. This is what gives the settling defendant true peace: it cannot be brought back into the litigation by a co-defendant seeking to shift part of a later judgment onto it. The bar is a powerful incentive to settle, and it is the reason non-settling defendants scrutinize settlements — because once good faith is found, they lose any ability to recover from the settlor, and their only protection is the setoff. (Note that the bar addresses equitable indemnity; certain express contractual indemnity rights can stand on different footing.)

Sliding-Scale and "Mary Carter" Agreements: Abbott Ford

Some settlements are structured as sliding-scale recovery agreements (historically called "Mary Carter" agreements), in which a settling defendant’s ultimate payment depends on the plaintiff’s recovery against the non-settling defendants — for example, the settling defendant guarantees the plaintiff a minimum recovery, offset by what the plaintiff obtains from others. The California Supreme Court addressed these in Abbott Ford, Inc. v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 858, holding that such agreements are not automatically invalid but must satisfy the good-faith requirements, and that the value of a sliding-scale agreement (for setoff purposes) must be determined so that non-settling defendants receive an appropriate credit. Sliding-scale agreements raise heightened concerns about collusion and realignment of incentives, so courts examine them carefully under the Tech-Bilt factors, with particular attention to valuation and to protecting the non-settling defendants’ setoff rights.

How a § 877.6 Motion Works

Procedurally, a party seeking a good-faith determination files an application or motion under § 877.6. The statute allows a streamlined procedure: a party may give notice of the settlement and a determination of good faith, and the burden shifts to any objector to establish a lack of good faith. If no party objects, the court may approve the settlement on the application; if a non-settling defendant objects, the court holds a hearing and weighs the Tech-Bilt factors. A party aggrieved by the determination may seek writ review within the statutory timeframe. In asbestos litigation, where settlements are frequent, these motions are routine but far from trivial — the good-faith finding fixes the setoff and extinguishes contribution rights, so both sides have real stakes in the outcome.

Strategic Considerations for Plaintiffs

For a mesothelioma plaintiff, the good-faith settlement framework is generally favorable because it encourages defendants to settle and allows the plaintiff to resolve against willing defendants while continuing to pursue others. Plaintiffs should be mindful of the allocation of settlement proceeds (between economic and non-economic damages, and among multiple claimants such as a decedent’s heirs), because allocation affects the setoff against the remaining defendants and the net recovery. Plaintiffs also benefit from the reality that the "ballpark" standard is deferential, so good-faith determinations are usually obtained without major obstruction. Coordinating the sequence and structure of settlements across many defendants is a core part of maximizing a mesothelioma recovery.

Strategic Considerations for Defendants

For defendants, the statute presents a choice: settle early and buy peace through a good-faith determination, or remain in the case and rely on setoffs from others’ settlements while preserving trial defenses. A defendant that settles wants a solid good-faith finding to foreclose contribution claims; a non-settling defendant wants to ensure settlements are reasonable so its setoff is adequate, and will challenge a settlement only if it is grossly disproportionate or tainted by collusion. Because the bar on contribution is absolute once good faith is found, timing and the adequacy of the settlement amount are critical. Defendants also watch the allocation of proceeds closely, since an allocation skewed toward categories that do not reduce their exposure can diminish the practical value of the setoff.

Allocation of Settlement Proceeds and Its Effect on the Setoff

One of the most consequential and least understood aspects of good-faith settlement is the allocation of the settlement amount. A settlement is often a single lump sum, but for setoff purposes it may need to be allocated among different categories and claimants: between economic and non-economic damages, between a personal-injury claim and a wrongful-death claim, and among multiple heirs in a death case. The allocation matters because of how California apportions liability — and because the non-settling defendants' setoff credit depends on how the proceeds are characterized. A settlement allocated heavily toward categories for which the remaining defendants bear joint and several exposure can reduce their liability more than one allocated toward several-only categories. For this reason, allocation is frequently contested: non-settling defendants scrutinize it to protect their setoff, and courts must ensure the allocation is reasonable and not manipulated to minimize the credit to which the remaining defendants are entitled. A principled, evidence-based allocation is part of a defensible good-faith settlement.

Interaction With Proposition 51 Apportionment

Good-faith settlement operates against the backdrop of California's damages-apportionment rules, and the two must be read together. Under Proposition 51 (Civil Code § 1431.2), a defendant's liability for non-economic damages is several only — each defendant is responsible for non-economic damages in proportion to its own share of fault — while liability for economic damages remains joint and several. This distinction shapes how the § 877 setoff is applied: because non-economic damages are already apportioned by fault, the credit for a prior settlement interacts differently with the economic (joint) and non-economic (several) components of a later judgment. In asbestos cases, where numerous defendants settle and a few proceed to trial, the combined effect of multiple good-faith setoffs and Proposition 51 apportionment determines each remaining defendant's ultimate exposure. Getting this interaction right — tracking the setoffs, the allocation of each settlement, and the Proposition 51 apportionment of the verdict — is essential to an accurate final judgment and is a frequent subject of post-verdict motions. For plaintiffs and defendants alike, modeling these interactions before settling is as important as the settlement itself, because the sequence and allocation of each resolution ripple through every later calculation. Experienced counsel treats the good-faith settlement framework and Proposition 51 as a single, integrated system rather than as separate steps.

Related Guides

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a good-faith settlement determination?

It is a court ruling, under Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6, that a settlement between a plaintiff and one of several defendants was made in good faith. The determination reduces the plaintiff's claims against the remaining defendants by the settlement amount (setoff) and bars the others from seeking equitable contribution or indemnity from the settling defendant.

What are the Tech-Bilt factors?

From Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488: a rough approximation of the plaintiff's total recovery and the settlor's proportionate liability; the amount paid; the allocation of proceeds; the recognition a settlor pays less than if found liable at trial; the settlor's financial condition and insurance; and the absence of collusion or fraud against non-settling defendants.

What is the "ballpark" standard?

A good-faith settlement must be reasonable in light of the settling defendant's proportionate liability — within the "ballpark" of its likely share, discounted for litigation risk. It need not match the eventual share exactly. A challenger must show the settlement is grossly disproportionate, not merely smaller than preferred. Call Trembach Law Firm at (213) 645-2246.

How does the setoff protect non-settling defendants?

Under § 877, a good-faith settlement reduces the plaintiff's claims against the remaining defendants by the settlement amount (as to shared damages), preventing double recovery. In asbestos cases with many settlements, these setoffs accumulate and reduce the recoverable damages by the time the case reaches the remaining defendants at trial.

What does the contribution bar do?

Once a court finds a settlement was in good faith, § 877.6 bars all other joint tortfeasors from pursuing the settling defendant for equitable contribution or comparative equitable indemnity. This gives the settling defendant true peace — it cannot be brought back into the case by a co-defendant seeking to shift part of a later judgment.

What is a sliding-scale or "Mary Carter" agreement?

It is a settlement in which the settling defendant's ultimate payment depends on the plaintiff's recovery against the non-settling defendants. In Abbott Ford, Inc. v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 858, the California Supreme Court held such agreements are not automatically invalid but must meet good-faith requirements and be valued so non-settling defendants get an appropriate setoff credit.

Who bears the burden on a good-faith motion?

Once a settlement and a good-faith application are presented, the party opposing the determination bears the burden of proving the settlement was not made in good faith — typically by showing it is grossly disproportionate to the settlor's fair share or tainted by collusion. Uncontested applications may be approved without a hearing.

How does this affect my mesothelioma recovery?

The framework encourages defendants to settle, letting you resolve against willing defendants while pursuing others. The allocation of settlement proceeds (economic vs. non-economic, and among heirs) affects setoffs and net recovery, so structuring and sequencing settlements across many defendants is central to maximizing your result. Call Trembach Law Firm at (213) 645-2246.

Talk to a California Mesothelioma Lawyer About Settlement Strategy

Mesothelioma cases are won not only at trial but through the careful sequencing and structuring of settlements with many defendants under California's good-faith settlement statute. Trembach Law Firm, led by Anatolii Trembach (LL.M.; admitted in California), secures and defends good-faith settlement determinations under Code of Civil Procedure §§ 877 and 877.6, applies the Tech-Bilt factors, and protects clients' recovery as defendants resolve one by one. Call (213) 645-2246 for a confidential consultation.

Contact Trembach Law Firm at (818) 514-7680 for a confidential consultation.

Trembach Law Firm | 27001 Agoura Road, Suite 350, Calabasas, CA 91301