Opinion ID: 2217907
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Allied's Indemnity Claim Against the State.

Text: Allied does not challenge the dismissal of its indemnity claim against Smith. It does challenge the dismissal of its indemnity claim against the State. It posits this challenge on the contention that the owners' liability statute, Iowa Code § 321.493 (1989), imposes an independent statutory duty on the State toward Allied's insureds. [3] We reject Allied's contention. The duty the State owed to Allied's insureds under section 321.493 can rise no higher than Smith's duty to those persons. Smith's duty was only the general duty not to cause injury to another by one's negligent act. We have previously rejected the contention that this general duty can give rise to an action for indemnity on the part of a person who is legally liable for the payment of damages for which indemnity is being sought. Iowa Power & Light Co. v. Abild Constr. Co., 259 Iowa 314, 326, 144 N.W.2d 303, 310 (1966). Allied attempts to enhance the State's duty under section 321.493 for indemnity purposes by referring to language in the Abild case, indicating that indemnity may be permitted in situations involving a vicarious liability. Id. at 322-23, 144 N.W.2d at 308. We believe that this language made reference to situations in which the party seeking indemnity was vicariously liable to the injured party on account of acts of the party against whom indemnity was being sought. This is not the situation between Allied and the State in the present case. The district court did not err in dismissing Allied's indemnity claims against the State.