Opinion ID: 2630467
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Equitable Indemnity

Text: [¶ 27] Jacobs Ranch's third theory is equitable indemnification. We have previously said that [i]mplied theories of indemnity are not viable in the face of an express indemnity agreement. Wyoming Johnson, Inc. v. Stag Industries, Inc., 662 P.2d 96, 101 (Wyo.1983). As we explained, when parties have entered into a written contract which includes an express indemnification provision, the express provision controls. It is inappropriate to enlarge or add rights of indemnification to the express provision by implication. Id. at 102. The claim in Wyoming Johnson was implied indemnity rather than equitable indemnity, but the same principle should apply under the circumstances of this case. Jacobs Ranch and Thunder Basin have an express indemnity agreement, which does not apply to claims for surface royalty payments. It would be inappropriate to enlarge or add to Jacobs Ranch's rights of indemnification using an equitable indemnity theory. We therefore affirm the district court's summary judgment decision denying Jacobs Ranch's indemnity claim under the three theories of express, implied, and equitable indemnity. [¶ 28] Affirmed.