Opinion ID: 78186
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Looking behind the Complaint in the White action

Text: Part and parcel to its finding that ISOM need only indemnify Holcim if Holcim were not negligent, the district court concluded that because the pleadings in the White action only alleged negligence against Holcim and not ISOM, Holcim was not entitled to indemnification under the Agreement. Holcim argues that the district court should consider the underlying facts of the White action as opposed to only the allegations in the complaint. ISOM responds that the district court correctly limited its analysis to the plain face of the complaint in the White action, which only alleged negligence against Holcim. Neither of the parties have presented a case directly on point: whether a court may look behind (or beyond) a complaint from an underlying action to determine coverage of an indemnity provision in the subsequent indemnification action between the indemnitor and indemnitee. While the Alabama Supreme Court has appeared to allow a court to look behind the pleadings in interpreting a similar (but not identical) provision, [8] see FabArc, 914 So.2d at 361 (rejecting the indemnitor's argument that the allegation provision could be triggered only by the filing o[f] an action naming it as a defendant; all the provision requires is that there be a charge or allegation of fault on the part of [indemnitor]), the district court relied on persuasive authority from other jurisdictions establishing to the contrary, see Ohio Casualty, 2007 WL 2807570, at -10. [9] Because we find no clear, controlling precedent on point under Alabama law, we certify this issue to the Alabama Supreme Court as well.