Case Title: HABCO, a Colorado corporation; and HARLAN HODGE V. L&B OILFIELD SERVICE, INC., a Wyoming corporation; and RIM OPERATING, INC., a Colorado corporation

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2006-07-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
HABCO, a Colorado corporation; and HARLAN HODGE V. L&B OILFIELD SERVICE, INC., a Wyoming corporation; and RIM OPERATING, INC., a Colorado corporation2006 WY 91138 P.3d 1162Case Number: 05-216Decided: 07/28/2006
APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2006

 
 
HABCO, a 
Colorado 
corporation; and HARLAN HODGE,

 
 
Appellants

(Plaintiffs),

 
 
v.

 
 
L&B 
OILFIELD SERVICE, INC., a Wyoming corporation; 
and RIM OPERATING, INC., a Colorado corporation,

 
 
Appellees

(Defendants).

 
 
Appeal 
from the DistrictCourtofCampbellCounty

 
 

Representing 
Appellants:

Patrick 
T. Holscher of Schwartz, Bon, Walker & Studer, LLC, Casper, Wyoming

 

Representing 
Appellee L&B Oilfield Service, Inc.:

James R. 
Bell of Murane & Bostwick, LLC, Casper, Wyoming

 
 

Representing 
Appellee Rim Operating, Inc.:

Thomas 
F. Reese and Mistee L. Godwin of Brown, Drew & Massey, LLP, Casper, Wyoming.  
Argument by Mr. Reese.

 
 
Before 
VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL,* KITE, BURKE, JJ.

 
 
* Chief 
Justice at time of oral argument

 
 

GOLDEN, 
Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      After settling a 
personal injury lawsuit, Habco and Harlan Hodge brought the instant suit against 
L&B Oilfield Service, Inc. (hereinafter "L&B") and RIM Operating, Inc. 
(hereinafter "RIM") presenting, among other claims, a claim for indemnification 
under the doctrine of equitable implied indemnity.  The district court granted summary 
judgment to both L&B and RIM, respectively, on the equitable implied 
indemnity claim.  We hold that, 
under the facts of this case, Habco and Hodge cannot sustain their claim for 
equitable implied indemnity against either L&B or RIM.  The order of the district court is 
affirmed.

 
 
ISSUES

 
 
[¶2]      Habco presents 
two issues for this Court's consideration:

 
 
1.         
Did the district court err in finding that the doctrine of implied 
equitable indemnity did not apply to the subject case such that indemnity did 
not arise in the relationship between L&B Oilfield Service, Inc. and 
Habco?

 
 
2.         
Did the district court err in finding that the doctrine of implied 
equitable indemnity did not apply to the subject case such that indemnity did 
not arise in the relationship between RIM, Inc. and Habco?

 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶3]      The material 
facts, as apply to this appeal, are not in dispute.  Indeed, the material facts primarily can 
be taken from Habco's amended complaint.1  RIM owned a well site that forms the 
backdrop of the instant case.  
Charles Johnson is RIM's field supervisor.  RIM contracted with L&B to provide 
certain equipment and services to RIM, including a water truck for field 
operations.  Charles Johnson is the 
principal for L&B.  

[¶4]      In February 1999, 
RIM contracted with a company named H&R Well Service (hereinafter "H&R") 
to provide plugging and abandoning operations on certain oil and gas wells.  H&R, in turn, hired Habco as a 
subcontractor.  Habco, through its 
sole shareholder and employee, Harlan Hodge, provided supervisory services and 
otherwise helped coordinate H&R's field operations. (Habco and Hodge will 
hereinafter be referred to collectively as "Habco.")

 
 
[¶5]      Bryan Johnson is 
Charles Johnson's son.  Bryan, 
earlier an employee of L&B, at the time of the accident was employed by 
RIM.  On February 19, 1999, 
Bryan drove 
L&B's water truck to the well site.  
Bryan was 
severely injured in an accident involving the water truck.  While not in the amended complaint, it 
is undisputed that Hodge was on site when the accident occurred and was 
overseeing Bryan's operation of the water truck.  

 
 
[¶6]      In 2002, 
Bryan sued 
H&R and others, including Habco.  
Neither RIM nor L&B were parties to the suit.  Habco eventually settled with Bryan.  Habco then brought the instant action 
seeking indemnification from RIM and L&B respectively.  RIM and L&B both moved for summary 
judgment, which the district court granted, finding that Habco failed to 
demonstrate an independent relationship sufficient to support a claim of 
equitable implied indemnity existed between Habco and either L&B or RIM.2

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 
Standard 
of Review

 
 
[¶7]      This Court 
reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo without giving any deference to the 
district court's determinations.  In 
reviewing a district court's grant of summary judgment, this Court has before it 
the same materials as the district court and it employs the same standards as 
used by the district court.  We 
examine the record from the vantage point most favorable to the party who 
opposed the motion, and we give that party the benefit of all favorable 
inferences that may fairly be drawn from the record.  Burnett v. Imerys Marble, Inc., 2005 WY 
82, ¶ 10, 116 P.3d 460, 462 (Wyo. 2005); Act I, LLC v. Davis, 2002 WY 183, ¶ 9, 
60 P.3d 145, 148 (Wyo. 2002).  
Summary judgment is appropriate only when there are no genuine issues of 
material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of 
law.  W.R.C.P. 56(c). 

 
 
Equitable 
Implied Indemnity

 
 
[¶8]      Equitable implied 
indemnity is a restitution concept that permits shifting costs where failing to 
do so would result in unjust enrichment of one party at the expense of 
another.  Gainsco Ins. Co. v. Amoco Production 
Co., 2002 WY 122, ¶¶ 54-55, 53 P.3d 1051, 1067 (Wyo. 2002).  To state a claim for equitable implied 
indemnity, the proposed indemnitee must allege: (1) an independent legal 
relationship with the proposed indemnitor; (2) negligent breach by the proposed 
indemnitor of the duty created by the independent relationship; (3) under 
circumstances falling within the situations addressed in Restatement Torts 
(Second) § 886B(2); and (4) that the breach of the duty to the proposed 
indemnitee contributed to cause the injuries and damage to the injured 
party.  Diamond Surface, Inc. v. Cleveland, 963 P.2d 996, 1003 (Wyo. 1998); Schneider Nat., Inc. v. Holland Hitch 
Co., 843 P.2d 561, 575-79 (Wyo. 1992).  

 
 
[¶9]      As can be seen, a 
prerequisite to a claim for equitable implied indemnity is the existence of an 
independent legal relationship between the proposed indemnitor and the proposed 
indemnitee:

 
 
As a 
departure point, the maxim discloses the need for an independent legal 
relationship between the party seeking indemnity and the party from whom 
indemnity is sought.  The 
independent legal relationship is one under which the indemnitor owes a duty . . 
. [in] tort to the indemnitee apart from the joint duty they owe to the injured 
party.  

 
 

Schneider, at 
572-73 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).  The district court held that Habco 
failed to meet this first element with respect to both L&B and RIM.  We agree.  

 
 
[¶10]   Habco focuses its attention on the 
alleged breaches of duty owed by L&B and RIM, respectively, to Bryan.  The district court correctly pointed out 
that Habco's focus is on the wrong relationships.  Habco must allege, and present a 
material issue of fact, regarding an independent legal relationship between 
itself and L&B and RIM, respectively, giving rise to a duty by them to 
Habco, apart from their duties to Bryan.  
Diamond Surface, Inc., 963 P.2d  at 1002-03 (a successful action for equitable implied indemnity requires 
that an indemnitor must have negligently breached a separate duty owed to the 
indemnitee).

  

[¶11]   Far from establishing a separate 
legal relationship between itself and L&B or RIM, in its amended complaint 
Habco alleges that RIM hired H&R to provide plugging and abandoning 
operations on certain oil and gas wells.  
H&R, in turn, contracted with Habco.  Habco provided "supervisory services, 
through its sole employee, Harlan Hodge, for H&R operations . . . .  HABCO [sic] was additionally to secure 
the services of other contractors, as necessary, in order that the H&R 
contract could be fulfilled."  In 
other words, Habco was at the well site as a subcontractor of H&R.  Any services procured by Habco were 
procured on behalf of H&R.  
Accordingly, by its own pleading, there was no direct relationship 
between Habco and L&B or RIM.  

 
 
[¶12]   In an attempt to support the 
existence of an independent legal relationship, on appeal Habco argues that RIM 
and L&B owed general duties of care to everyone present at the well 
site.  For instance, Habco argues 
that RIM, as the owner of the well site, owed a duty to all invitees to maintain 
the premises in a reasonably safe condition.  However, broad, general duties of care, 
owed by all, do not establish the type of independent legal relationship 
required to maintain an action for equitable implied indemnity.  To establish a claim for equitable implied 
indemnity, there must be some form of legal relationship between the parties 
beyond the relationship established by virtue of one party alleging that he was 
sued because of another party's wrongdoing.  What is necessary is a specific duty owed 
by a proposed indemnitor to a proposed indemnitee.  Ultimately, Habco has failed to identify 
any independent legal relationship between itself and either L&B or RIM that 
would give rise to a duty by either L&B or RIM to indemnify Habco.3

 
 
CONCLUSION

 
 
[¶13]   Habco did not plead any independent 
legal relationship with L&B or RIM, nor did it present any material facts 
which would permit a finding that any relationship that might have existed 
between itself and L&B or RIM in any way gave rise to a right of indemnity. 
On the contrary, Habco simply alleges that L&B and RIM's acts were negligent 
towards Bryan 
and the world in general.  Habco's 
claims for equitable implied indemnification against L&B and RIM, 
respectively, cannot be sustained under the instant facts and 
circumstances.  The order of the 
district court is affirmed.

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1Habco's 
brief is seriously deficient in regard to its record cites.  Habco directs the attention of this 
Court to 100 or more pages in the record for support of almost every factual 
allegation.  Further, Habco's 
voluminous citations are mostly citations to deposition transcripts that are 
printed in condensed format.  The 
condensed format is four transcript pages per printed page.  Thus, Habco's citations to hundreds of 
pages in the record are actually quadrupled for transcript pages.  This presentation is a clear violation 
of W.R.A.P. 7.01(e)(2) which requires a statement of facts be supported by 
appropriate references to the record on appeal.  Davis v. Big Horn Basin Newspapers, Inc., 884 P.2d 979, 983 (Wyo. 1994).  Were we not able to discern the material 
facts from Habco's amended complaint, we would be inclined to summarily affirm 
the district court's order as a consequence of Habco's blatant violations of our 
court rules.

 
 

2L&B 
filed a motion to dismiss, which all parties agreed was converted to a motion 
for summary judgment by operation of W.R.C.P. 
12(c).

 
 

3Habco, by 
its presentation in its brief, essentially admits its inability to precisely 
identify an independent legal relationship with either L&B or RIM.  As already noted, Habco repeatedly cites 
to hundreds of pages in the record to support its facts and allegations, 
including its proposition that "a relationship of some sort did exist."  Habco states that a review of the 
"massive amounts of material" is necessary in order to fully understand the 
relationship between the parties.  
It is Habco's responsibility to fully understand the relationship between 
the parties and detail it for this Court.  
This Court will not engage in a fishing expedition through an entire 
record in order to determine if an appropriate independent legal relationship 
existed and thereby make Habco's case for it.