Opinion ID: 3011319
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: Plaintiffs/appellants Gould Electronics, Inc. (Gould) and American Premier Underwriters, Inc. (APU) were codefendants in a toxic tort case captioned Cheryl Allen, et al. v. Marathon Battery Co., et al., No. 1074/90 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (the Allen case). The Allen case arose out of personal injuries and property damage allegedly caused by air and water pollution from a battery manufacturing plant in Cold Spring, New York. The plant was designed, constructed, owned, and operated by the United States Army, via its office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and owned and 2 operated by Gould and APU, and their predecessors, at various times. The Army was not a party to the Allen litigation. Gould and APU settled the Allen case for $4.5 million. Gould and APU filed a Complaint against defendant/appellee United States of America (United States), in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, seeking contribution and indemnity because of their entry into the Allen case settlement, pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. SS 1346(b), 2671 et seq. The District Court granted the United States' Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) (Rule 12(b)(1)), holding: (1) under Pennsylvania choice of law rules, New York contribution and indemnity law governs the FTCA jurisdictional inquiry; (2) the court lacks jurisdiction over the contribution claim because the United States would not be liable for contribution under N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law S 15-108(c), which bars settling parties from bringing contribution claims against nonsettling parties (hereinafter S 15-108(c)); and (3) the court lacks jurisdiction over the indemnification claim because the United States would not be liable for indemnification under New York law, which bars indemnification when the plaintiff is at least partially at fault. Gould and APU contend the District Court erred by: (1) misapplying the standards governing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1); (2) holding New York, rather than Pennsylvania, contribution and indemnity law governs the jurisdictional inquiry, under Pennsylvania choice of law rules; (3) holding the United States would not be liable for contribution under S 15-108(c) because the United States waived the protection of S 15-108(c); and (4) holding the United States would not be liable for indemnity under New York law. We find the District Court properly applied the standards used for analyzing a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss, but erred in determining New York contribution and indemnity law controls the outcome. Rather we hold that Ohio law governs the jurisdictional inquiry and, under Ohio law, the United States would be liable for contribution, but not 3 indemnity.1 As such, the District Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Gould/APU's FTCA claim for contribution, but not for indemnity. The District Court's ruling is AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART and the case is REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.2