Opinion ID: 2521108
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Negligence and breach of contract

Text: AVCP argues that its negligence and breach of contract claims against Vranckaert are not precluded because they were not resolved by Judge Curda and are independent of its indemnity claims. Vranckaert responds that these two causes of action are indemnity claims in disguise. Therefore, Vranckaert maintains, the claims are subject to dismissal on summary judgment. A review of AVCP's third-party complaint and its cross-claim against Vranckaert in the Engler suit reveals that AVCP apparently seeks damages only in the amount that it paid in settlement to the plaintiffs and for the fees and costs it incurred in defending against the Nilsson plaintiffs' claims. AVCP's prayer for relief in its cross-claim states in full: 1. For indemnification from defendants Vranckaert/Kuukpik for any damages awarded to plaintiffs against AVCP-RHA; 2. For indemnification from defendants Vranckaert/Kuukpik for any settlement amount paid to plaintiffs as a result of plaintiffs' claims against AVCP-RHA; 3. For indemnification from defendants Vranckaert/Kuukpik for all fees and costs incurred by AVCP-RHA in defending against plaintiffs' claims; and 4. For such other and further relief as the court deems just and equitable. Similarly, in its complaint against Vranckaert after AVCP was dismissed from the Nilsson suit, AVCP prays only [f]or indemnification from defendants for the $850,000.00 settlement amount paid to the Nilsson plaintiffs as a result of the Nilsson plaintiffs' claims against AVCP-RHA and for indemnification for all fees and costs incurred by AVCPRHA in defending against the Nilsson plaintiffs' claims. In its opposition to Vranckaert's motion for summary judgment, AVCP alleged that Vranckaert breached both the contractual standard of care and duty to indemnify AVCP for damages resulting from Vranckaert's negligent performance of the contract. To the extent that the claims for breach of contract and negligence seek to recover from Vranckaert the amount that AVCP paid in settlement to the Nilsson or Engler plaintiffs or the fees or costs incurred in defending these lawsuits, the claims are not permitted. [31] As discussed above, under our reasoning in Vertecs and under the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Apportionment of Liability § 22, AVCP's breach of contract and negligence claims must fail because they are, in essence, implied contractual indemnity claims and AVCP failed to demonstrate that it was without fault and that it settled the claims against Vranckaert and obtained from the plaintiffs a release of Vranckaert's liability.