Does the term "judgment" mean "judgement" within the meaning of section 11580(b)(2) of the California Code of Civil Procedure?

This court previously construed the word "judgment" as used in Code of Civil Procedure section 877. In Southern Cal. White Trucks v. Teresinski (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 1393, 1405, 236 Cal.Rptr. 159, this court stated: "While 'judgment' is defined by [Code of Civil Procedure] section 577 as 'the final determination of the rights of the parties in an action or proceeding,' the term is 'meaningless unless qualified by context, i.e., a judgment may be final, but modifiable at the trial level, or final for the purpose of appeal.' [Citation.] The finality of the judgment is determined by the circumstances present at the time it is entered; it is not determined on the basis of hindsight after further proceedings have established it did or did not provide the proper relief to the parties. [Citation.] Thus, the judgment of the trial court is a 'judgment' within the meaning of section 577 [citation]; the possibility of further challenge does not render it any less a 'judgment.' "

A like construction of "judgment" in section 11580(b)(2) to mean trial court judgment would be both internally consistent and consistent with other parts of the law. (Stillwell v. State Bar, supra, 29 Cal.2d at p. 123, 173 P.2d 313; City of Sacramento v. State of California, supra, 156 Cal.App.3d at p. 197, 203 Cal.Rptr. 258.) Section 11580(b)(2) provides "that whenever judgment is secured ..., then an action may be brought against the insurer on the policy ... by such judgment creditor to recover on the judgment." There is no provision for delaying the action pending appeal of the judgment.