Opinion ID: 2123729
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Equitable indemnification.

Text: The second question presented is whether intervenors have a right of indemnification based on equitable principles. The district court determined intervenors had no cause of action for indemnity independent of their rights under section 85.22. We agree. We have recognized four grounds of indemnity: (1) express contracts; (2) vicarious liability; (3) a breach of independent duty of the indemnitor to the indemnitee; and (4) secondary as opposed to primary liability. American Trust & Sav. Bank v. United States Fidelity & Guar. Co., 439 N.W.2d 188, 190 (Iowa 1989). The fourth ground, active-passive negligence, was abandoned in American Trust & Savings Bank. Id. at 190. In this case, no express contract existed between the intervenors and the employees. Second, the employees were not in any manner liable for the payments to the Fund. Finally, the employees owed no independent duty to the intervenors. We conclude no ground for indemnity remains independent of section 85.22. The district court properly denied the intervenors' claim based on equitable indemnification principles. AFFIRMED.