Charlotte Motor Speedway, Inc. v. Tindall Corp.

WYNN, Judge.

“There can be no implied contract where there is an express contract between the parties in reference to the same subject matter.” 1 Plaintiffs Charlotte Motor Speedway, Inc. and Charlotte Motor Speedway, LLC (“Speedway”) argue that they are entitled to implied-in-law indemnification from Defendant Tindall Corporation (“Tindall”) because their liability is derivative to Tindall’s negligence. Because Speedway and Tindall executed an express indemnification provision that, by its terms, does not cover the losses for which Speedway seeks indemnification, we affirm the trial court’s…