In Re Fort Totten Metrorail Cases
808 F. Supp. 2d 154
| D.D.C. | 2011Background
- ARINC filed cross-claim and third-party complaint against WMATA over the Conformed Contract governing the AIM system.
- ARINC alleges WMATA breached contract and implied good-faith duties by encouraging plaintiffs to sue ARINC.
- WMATA moves to dismiss Counts I and III of ARINC's cross-claim and to strike attorneys' fees; also moves to dismiss ARINC's Third-Party Complaint.
- Court previously ordered WMATA to list potential parties liable for the accident, informing plaintiffs of ARINC's potential liability.
- Contractual indemnification claim lacks explicit indemnity language; DC Workers' Compensation Act exclusivity may bar related claims.
- Court grants WMATA's motions: Counts I and III of cross-claim dismissed; Third-Party Complaint dismissed in full; fees issue moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Count I state a breach and bad-faith claim? | ARINC contends WMATA breached conformed contract and implied duties by naming ARINC as a potential defendant. | WMATA argues no breach; WMATA only complied with court orders to identify potential liable parties. | Count I dismissed. |
| Does Count III state contractual indemnification? | ARINC asserts WMATA indemnified ARINC for third-party liability under contract. | Conformed Contract lacks indemnity obligation for third-party liability; no express indemnify clause. | Count III dismissed. |
| Is Count I of the Third-Party Complaint duplicative and viable? | Identical to cross-claim Count I; seeks same relief. | No viable claim for breach or bad faith under contract. | Dismissed. |
| Are Counts II and III of the Third-Party Complaint barred by DC Workers' Comp Act exclusivity? | ARINC seeks equitable and contractual indemnification from WMATA. | Act exclusivity precludes such indemnification absent express contractual indemnity or special relationship. | Counts II and III dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Myco Inc. v. Super Concrete Co. Inc., 565 A.2d 293 (D.C. 1989) (exclusivity bars indemnity absent special relation or express contract)
- Howard University v. Good Food Services, Inc., 608 A.2d 116 (D.C. 1992) (ongoing comprehensive relationship allows equitable indemnity)
- N.P.P. Contractors, Inc. v. John Canning & Co., 715 A.2d 139 (D.C. 1998) (indemnify or save harmless language crucial)
- Grunley Constr. Co., Inc. v. Conway Corp., 676 A.2d 478 (D.C. 1996) (indemnity language interpretation matters)
- W.M. Schlosser Co., Inc. v. Maryland Drywall Co., Inc., 673 A.2d 647 (D.C. 1996) (indemnity and duty interpretations under contracts)
- American Building Maint. Co. v. L'Enfant Plaza Props., Inc., 655 A.2d 858 (D.C. 1995) (indemnify and hold harmless provisions analyzed)