Following summary judgments and settlements in litigation resulting from severe injuries in a hotel swimming pool, the only issues remaining were those raised in a cross-complaint brought by a party and its insurance company against the pool company to recover the amount it spent on the litigation based on a claim of express indemnity. The trial court awarded the amounts sought by the insured and insurer against the pool company. On appeal, the pool company contended the cross-complaint was time-barred under Code of Civil Procedure section 337.1, subdivision (a), [4 yr. statute of limitations for design or improvements on real property], but the Court of Appeal held Code of Civil Procedure section 337.1, subdivision (a), does not apply to claims for express indemnity. The pool company also contended that, on balancing the equities, the insurance company should bear the loss, but the appellate court found the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The pool company’s last contention on appeal was that the trial court erred by denying it a jury trial on its claim for express indemnity, and this time the appellate court agreed. The matter was remanded for further proceedings. (Valley Crest Landscape Development, Inc. v. Mission Pools of Escondido, Inc. (Cal. App. Fourth Dist., Div. 3; July 2, 2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 468 [189 Cal.Rptr.3d 259].)
