paid $3.9 million; JPI did not have to pay anything towards the settlement. On these undisputed facts, the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of RJS on its claim for express contractual indemnification because the undisputed facts demonstrate that RJS indemnified JPI in full. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. Respondents Great American and RJS are entitled to their costs on appeal. McGuiness, P. J., and Poliak, J., concurred. * Judge of the Alameda Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. 1 JPI subsequently dismissed Lloyds from the suit on March 22, 2005. 2 The only authority contrary to Reliance cited by appellants is Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. RLI Ins. Co. (8th Cir. 2002) 292 F.3d 583, 591 (<HOLDING>). In the first place, “ ‘federal decisional
holding that reasonable reliance is not an element of the defense holding that each class member was not required to prove justifiable reliance when an inference of reliance arises if a materially false representation was made to persons whose acts thereafter were consistent with reliance upon the representations holding that arkansas would not adopt the approach of reliance to resolve this case holding that officers are not required to resolve this inherently factbound defense of selfdefense on the scene holding in the context of a non  212c iirira retroactivity challenge that if reliance were required we would insist at most upon objectively reasonable reliance and not subjective reliance