Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Fairchild v. Park, 109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 442 (2001)

Citation
Fairchild v. Park, 109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 442 (2001)
Parent Document
Fairchild v. Park, 109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 442 (2001)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
2001-07-19

Other Sections in This Document (144)

Full Text

612 chars
[2] In Arntz Contracting Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 464, 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 888, the court interpreted a contractual cost provision that authorized the recovery of "all `costs, charges and expenses'...." (Id. at p. 492, 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 888.) The court found the provision to be valid even though it was broader than the statutory cost provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure. (Ibid.) Because Arntz was decided before Santisas, supra, 17 Cal.4th 599, 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 830, 951 P.2d 399, and did not consider the legislative history of Civil Code section 1717, we decline to follow it.