Opinion ID: 2776071
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Kellogg’s Arguments

Text: Kellogg makes two challenges to the applicability of the fair notice rule: ● The fair notice rule does not apply because Kellogg is seeking indemnity for Eby’s conduct, not Kellogg’s. ● The jury attributed fault to Eby, not Kellogg. We reject both arguments. Kellogg characterizes the pipeline owner’s claims as stemming from the damage to the pipeline and points out that the jury attributed that damage to Eby. Because all of the claims can be traced to Eby’s conduct, Kellogg argues that it is seeking indemnity for Eby’s actions, not Kellogg’s. As discussed above, the pipeline owner sued Kellogg for its inaction after Eby had caused the leak. Thus, our indemnity issues are unaffected by the jury’s finding that Eby had caused the leak.