Opinion ID: 2631683
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Equitable Implied Indemnity

Text: [¶ 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]