Original Complaint Did Not Give Rise To A Builder’s Claim For Equitable Indemnity Against A City.

A homeowner’s association’s original complaint against a builder alleged various building violations. Government Code section 901 provides:  “The date upon which a cause of action for equitable indemnity or partial equitable indemnity accrues shall be the date upon which a defendant is served with the complaint giving rise to the defendant’s claim for equitable indemnity or partial equitable indemnity against the public entity.” The builder contended it was not on notice of its potential indemnity claim until the HOA filed its Preliminary Statement of Claim as part of a case management order, stating the cast iron pipes leaked. Whereupon the builder presented the city with a government claim contending the cast iron pipes revealed crystallization as a result of gasses emitted from the city’s sewer system. The trial court concluded the original complaint gave rise to the builder’s claim for equitable indemnity against a city. The appellate court issued a writ of mandate reversing the trial court, stating: “we agree with [the builder] that there is nothing in section 901 that suggests that the Legislature intended for the service of a complaint to cause the accrual of an equitable indemnity claim seeking to apportion potential liability of a claim that is not pled in the complaint. Accordingly, the trial court erred in concluding that the Association’s April 2009 complaint gave rise to the claim for equitable indemnity contained in Centex’s proposed cross-complaint.” Centex Homes v. Sup.Ct. (City of San Diego)  (Cal. App. Fourth Dist., Div. 1; March 25, 2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1090.