Court Opinion

ID: 9946500
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-29 19:17:46.655917+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:35.765408
License: Public Domain

Vermont Superior Court
Filed 07/09/21
Caledonia Unit

CIVIL DIVISION
Case No. 128-10-20 Cacv

VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT

Caledonia Unit

1126 Main Street Suite 1
St. Johnsbury VT 05819
802-748-6600
www.vermontjudiciary.org

Matte vs. Vermont Transco et al

ENTRY REGARDING MOTION

Title: Transco and VELCO Motion to Dismiss ECEC’s Cross Claim for Indemnity
(Motion: 4)
Filer: Brent D Anderson

Filed Date: | March 19, 2021

The motion is DENIED.

While it appears undisputed that there is no express indemnity agreement, whether or not there is a
basis for implied indemnity will depend on the development of facts, no matter whether the Heco or
Hemond standard is applied. (In both of those cases, specific facts had been fully developed, and the
cases were decided on summary judgment.) Here, there are multiple parties, claims, contractual and
other relationships, and many facts to be sorted out. A ruling at this time granting the motion would be
based on Transco and VELCO’s argument based on projected facts and not on facts established by the
pleadings as uncontroverted. The standard for a motion to dismiss has not been met. The court cannot
conclude that there are no circumstances under which ECEC would be entitled to relief. Powers v. Office
of Child Support, 173 Vt. 390 (2002).

Electronically signed pursuant to V.R.E.F. 9(d) on July 7, 2021 at 2:28 PM.

Moy MV lw Sachoot

Mary es Teachout
Superiaf Court Judge

Entry Regarding Motion Page 1 of 1
128-10-20 Cacy Matte vs. Vermont Transco et al