Legal Opinion · Dissent

Koehring Manufacturing Co. v. Earthmovers of Fairbanks, Inc.

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided October 21, 1988No. S-1910, S-1921 and S-1946Published

1DissentMatthews, Chief Justice

In my view the trial court erred in granting Earthmovers’ cross-motion for summary judgment against Koehring for indemnity. This motion was granted because Koehring had not pled as an affirmative defense that Earthmovers was negligent with respect to the crane. Koehring had, however, moved for summary judgment on the indemnity claim on the basis of Earthmovers’ negligence. Koehring stated in its memorandum in support of motion for partial summary judgment, filed April 4, 1986:

The policy underlying the rule that concurrently negligent tortfeasors may not assert claims for implied indemnity is…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Gilberto Rivera, Nicholas Alberto, Luis Navarro, Jose Garcia, Hector Garcia, Pablo Galindo, Socorro Mendivil, Rogelio Casares v. Joe AnayaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
  2. Heritage v. Pioneer Brokerage & Sales, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 1979
  3. Sequoia Manufacturing Co. v. Halec Construction Co.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1977
  4. McKinley v. Bendix Corp.District Court, W.D. Missouri · 1976
  5. Sears, Sucsy & Co. v. Insurance Company of North AmericaDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1975

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API