Summary 2006 WY 91

[SPECIAL NOTE: These opinions use the "Universal Citation." They were given "official" citations when they were issued. You should use these citations whenever you cite these opinions, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinions that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

Case Name: Habco v. L&B Oilfield, Inc.

Citation: 2006 WY 91

Docket Number: 05-216

Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County, Honorable John R. Perry, Judge

Representing Appellants (Plaintiffs): Patrick T. Holscher of Schwartz, Bon, Walker & Studer, Casper, Wyoming

Representing Appellee L&B Oilfield Service, Inc. (Defendant) : James R. Bell of Murane & Bostwick, Casper, Wyoming

Representing Appellee Rim Operating, Inc. (Defendant): Thomas F. Reese and Mistee L. Godwin of Brown, Drew & Massey, LLP, Casper, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Reese.

Date of Decision: July 28, 2006

Issues: Whether the district court erred in finding that the doctrine of implied equitable indemnity did not apply to the subject case such that indemnity did not arise in the relationship between Appellant and either Appellee.

Holdings: Equitable implied indemnity is a restitution concept that permits shifting costs where failing to do so would result in unjust enrichment of one party at the expense of another. To state a claim for equitable implied indemnity, the proposed indemnitee must allege: (1) an independent legal relationship with the proposed indemnitor; (2) negligent breach by the proposed indemnitor of the duty created by the independent relationship; (3) under circumstances falling within the situations addressed in Restatement Torts (Second) § 886B(2); and (4) that the breach of the duty to the proposed indemnitee contributed to cause the injuries and damage to the injured party.

In the present action, the Appellant did not plead any independent legal relationship with either Appellee nor did it present any material facts which would permit a finding that any relationship that might have existed between itself and either Appellee gave rise to a right of indemnity. On the contrary, Appellant simply alleges that Appellees' acts were negligent towards the injured man and the world in general. Thus, Appellant's claims for equitable implied indemnification cannot be sustained under the instant facts and circumstances. The order of the district court is affirmed.

J. Golden delivered the opinion for the court.