Court Opinion

ID: 9588202
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:31:26.89884+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:13.885621
License: Public Domain

O’CONNELL, C. J.,
specially concurring.
I am of the opinion that the complaint was sufficient to state a cause of action for indemnity and that it would not have been demurrable if it had been attacked initially. At most it was subject to a motion to make more definite and certain. The complaint alleged that defendant was “primarily” liable, clearly inferring that plaintiffs were secondarily liable. There was also an allegation that the settlement made by plaintiffs was necessary in view of the probable liability of plaintiffs’ insureds. Thus defendant was apprised of the theory of plaintiffs’ case and if defendant needed further specific allegations to prepare its de*226fense it could have interposed a motion to make the complaint more definite and certain.
Since the pleading aspect of the case can be disposed of on this ground, it is not necessary to develop the theory adopted in the majority opinion which begins with the premise that the complaint was demurrable and then finds reasons for rehabilitating it.
Foley, J., joins in this specially concurring opinion.