Eclectic Investmetn, LLC v. Patterson
346 P.3d 468
Or.2015Background
- Eclectic Investment, LLC sues for property damages; Jackson County seeks common-law indemnity against the contractor, Patterson; underlying jury verdict assigns fault (plaintiff >50%, county 7%, contractor 4%) resulting in no liability to plaintiff under ORS 31.600.
- County incurred defense costs and sought indemnity from contractor; trial court denied, Court of Appeals affirmed.
- Contractor excavated a slope without a required permit; county later approved the project without demanding slope changes; slope erosion caused damages.
- County alleged independent negligence by county in approving the excavation; trial court and appellate courts treated indemnity in light of comparative fault.
- Oregon’s comparative negligence regime (ORS 31.610/31.605/31.600) replaces joint liability; common-law indemnity is generally incompatible with such regime.
- The court ultimately holds that, under Oregon’s comparative fault scheme, common-law indemnity is not justified and the county cannot recover indemnity from the contractor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is common-law indemnity compatible with Oregon’s comparative fault regime? | Eclectic argues Astoria-style passive/active negligence logic supports indemnity. | Contractor contends indemnity principles under Astoria are outdated where comparative fault applies. | No; indemnity is not compatible with the regime. |
| Should jury fault allocations govern entitlement to indemnity? | Fault allocation should make indemnity appropriate to shift costs. | Fault must be allocated among several liable parties; indemnity unnecessary. | Indemnity not justified where fault is allocated severally. |
| What standard governs the indemnity inquiry post-Fulton and Kamyr? | The traditional active/passive framework governs indemnity. | Comparative fault framework supersedes old indemnity standards; joint liability abolished. | Indemnity claims require joint liability; modern regime rejects that premise. |
Key Cases Cited
- Astoria v. Astoria & Columbia River R. Co., 67 Or 538 (Or. 1913) (indemnity historically allowed where one tortfeasor was passive and the other active; pre-comparative fault framework)
- Fulton Ins. Co. v. White Motor Corp., 261 Or 206 (Or. 1972) (indemnity analysis requires both tortfeasors to be subject to liability to a third party)
- Kamyr, Inc. v. Boise Cascade Corp., 268 Or 130 (Or. 1974) (reaffirmed need for joint liability precondition for indemnity while acknowledging primary liability concepts)
- U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 264 Or 362 (Or. 1973) (discussed language arising from the notion of primary vs. secondary liability)
- Kennedy v. Colt, 216 Or 647 (Or. 1959) (illustrated principles of equitable distribution among joint tortfeasors)
- Gen. Ins. Co. of Am. v. P. S. Lord Mech. Contractors, 258 Or 332 (Or. 1971) (noted limits of passive/active dichotomy in indemnity contexts)