Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School Dist. v. N. Orange Cty. Regional Occupational Program CA4/3

Filed 7/7/14 Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School Dist. v. N. Orange Cty. Regional Occupational Program CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

PLACENTIA-YORBA LINDA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, G049073 Cross-complainant and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 30-2011-00513403) v. OPINION NORTH ORANGE COUNTY REGIONAL OCCUPATIONAL PROGRAM,

Cross-defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, John C. Gastelum, Judge. Reversed. Cummings, McClorey, Davis, Acho & Associates and Ryan D. Miller for Cross-complainant and Appellant. Wallace, Brown & Schwartz, Lisa J. Brown and George M. Wallace for Cross-defendant and Respondent.

This case involves the interpretation of an indemnity provision by which cross-defendant and respondent North Orange County Regional Occupational Program (NOCROP) agreed to indemnify, defend and hold harmless cross-complainant and appellant Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School District (District) from liability arising from NOCROP’s use of certain District property. The underlying plaintiff was injured when she tripped over a tree stump on her way from a classroom to a parking lot. The trial court granted NOCROP’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds the plaintiff’s injury did not arise from NOCROP’s use or occupancy of the specified premises and thus the indemnity provision did not apply. On appeal District argues the trial court interpreted the indemnity provision too narrowly and the language used manifests the parties’ intent NOCROP would indemnify District for the plaintiff’s injury. We agree. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The facts in this case are fairly simple. District owns Esperanza High School (School). NOCROP entered into a two-page form agreement (Agreement) with District to use a classroom at the School for a NOCROP class. In the Agreement NOCROP “agree[d] to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless [District] . . . from all loss, cost, and expenses arising out of any liability or claim of liability for personal injury, bodily injury to persons, and damage to property sustained or claimed to have been sustained arising out of or in connection with the use [or]1 occupancy by [NOCROP] or any of its . . . employees . . . , whether such act is authorized by this [A]greement or not . . . .” (Indemnity Provision.) NOCROP employed the plaintiff (not a party to this appeal), to teach the class. She claimed that on the way to the parking lot after teaching the class one evening, she tripped over a tree stump in a walkway that was not properly lit. The plaintiff sued