Opinion ID: 775487
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Indemnity Claim Against Partnership Defendants

Text: 134 The district court granted the Partnership Defendants' motion for summary judgment on Carson Harbor's indemnity claim under the purchase and sale agreement, based on its conclusion that the response costs were not necessary under &#167 9607(a)(4)(B). See Carson Harbor, 990 F. Supp. at 1198. Under the purchase and sale agreement, which the Partnership Defendants and Carson Harbor executed in 1983, the Partnership Defendants agreed to indemnify and hold Carson Harbor harmless from and against any . . . damage, cost, expense . . . liability . . . suffered by [Carson Harbor] resulting, directly or indirectly, from . . . any liability or obligation of [the Partnership Defendants] which [Carson Harbor] is not specifically required to assume hereunder. Thus, the Partnership Defendants are liable for damages and costs Carson Harbor suffered in connection with its cleanup of the property if the Partnership Defendants would have been required to clean up the property in 1983. 135 To survive summary judgment on this claim, Carson Harbor must raise a genuine issue of material fact. Carson Harbor argues that, because it was required to remove the hazardous substances in 1995, the Partnership Defendants would have been required to remove them in 1983. Because we conclude that there is a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether Carson Harbor's 1995 cleanup costs were necessary (i.e., whether the Water Quality Board perceived a threat to public health or the environment and whether it required the remediation), we reverse the grant of summary judgment in favor of the Partnership Defendants.