Opinion ID: 901045
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Initiating a Frivolous Claim

Text: [¶ 7.] The trial court considered the circumstances under which Wuebker originally filed the Third Party Complaint, and determined that it was not frivolous. Wuebker based their claim against Utne on the premise that if Gronau proved negligent construction against them, Utne would be the party ultimately responsible. Had Wuebker not impleaded Utne, Wuebker would not have any recourse against Utne who had performed most of the work. [¶ 8.] Our rules of civil procedure allow a defendant to implead a third party if the third party could be liable to the defendant for claims made by the plaintiff. SDCL 15-6-14(a) states in part: At any time after commencement of the action a defending party, as a third-party plaintiff, may cause a summons and complaint to be served upon a person not a party to the action who is or may be liable to him for all or part of the plaintiff's claim against him. Id. (emphasis added). [¶ 9.] The rule does not require the third party plaintiff to show that the third party defendant is actually liable, it only requires that he may be liable. Here, the trial court determined that Wuebker did not allege that Utne was negligent but only alleged that if negligence were found as Gronau claimed, that Utne ought to be responsible. It was not unreasonable for Wuebker to have expected a favorable judicial ruling under the circumstances. The record supports the trial court's reasoning and therefore we cannot say that denying Utne's motion was clearly against reason and evidence or that the trial court abused its discretion.