Opinion ID: 901045
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Dismissing a Frivolous Claim

Text: [¶ 10.] Additionally, Utne requests that the Court expand the definition of frivolous to include a party's failure to dismiss a claim when it becomes obvious that no evidence supports the claim. Utne claims that Wuebker's refusal to dismiss the Third Party Complaint was frivolous after discovery produced no evidence of negligence. This is a closer call. We have said however, [s]imply because a claim or defense is adjudged to be without merit does not mean that it is frivolous. Ridley, 2000 SD 143, ¶ 14, 619 N.W.2d at 259. In this case, Gronau's negligence claim against Wuebker was still proceeding to trial. As already noted, Utne's crew performed the majority of the construction, and it was interpleaded only to preserve Gronau's claim in the event the jury ultimately found negligence. Further, [a]ny doubt about whether or not a legal position is frivolous or taken in bad faith must be resolved in favor of the party whose legal position is in question. Id. at ¶ 15, 619 N.W.2d at 260 (quoting Estate of Snover, 4 Neb.App. 533, 546 N.W.2d 341, 349) (citations omitted). Continuing a third party action against Utne whose carpenters performed a majority of the work cannot be characterized as a legal position so wholly without merit as to be ridiculous. Behrens v. American Stores Packing Co., 236 Neb. 279, 460 N.W.2d 671, 677 (1990). Consequently, we are unable to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in disallowing expenses and attorney fees for Utne. Under the facts of this case, we decline to expand the definition of a frivolous action to include failure to dismiss a meritless claim. A stronger showing of unreasonableness would be required than is presented here. We affirm. [¶ 11.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and SABERS, KONENKAMP, and ZINTER, Justices, concur.