J-McDaniel Construction Co. v. Dale E. Peters Plumbing Ltd.
436 S.W.3d 458
Ark.2014Background
- McDaniel Construction hired Peters, Bostic, and Esquire as subcontractors to build a Little Rock home; Peters did plumbing, Bostic did excavation/site prep, Esquire installed a master bath shower.
- Conrads purchased the home in 2006 and later alleged settlement defects (settlement cracks, misaligned doors, odor) and sued McDaniel for negligence and implied warranties.
- McDaniel asserted third-party claims against Peters, Bostic, and Esquire for contribution and indemnity, based on alleged defects linked to shower drain, excavation, and installation.
- Court proceedings included multiple summary-judgment motions; Conrads settled with McDaniel, and the circuit court later dismissed claims against third parties with prejudice, including all cross-claims.
- Appellants appealed; the supreme court reversed and remanded, deciding Act 1116 of 2013 retroactively preserves UCATA contribution/indemnity rights post-CJRA, requiring further consideration of McDaniel’s derivative claims.
- The case concerns whether McDaniel’s contribution and indemnity claims survive after settlements and after CJRA, given Act 1116’s remedial, retroactive effect.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Act 1116 apply retroactively to preserve UCATA contribution? | McDaniel: Act 1116 retroactive; UCATA remains viable post-CJRA. | Appellees: Act 1116 does not apply retroactively or as to UCATA rights here. | Act 1116 retroactive; contribution/indemnity survive. |
| Are McDaniel's contribution claims cognizable after CJRA and settlement dynamics? | Contributions rights exist and are derivative; settlement does not destroy them. | CJRA abolishes joint liability; contribution claims are moot or unnecessary. | Contribution rights remain; issues for remand due to unsettled facts. |
| Did the amended settlement with the Conrads extinguish liability for contribution/indemnity? | Settlement and amended agreement were not addressed by the circuit court; unresolved facts remain. | Settlements extinguish liability to the Conrads and moot third-party claims. | Material facts remain; not moot; remand proper. |
| Is there a basis for equitable indemnity given unwritten contracts or special relationships? | Implied or equitable indemnity may exist based on relationships and duty to third parties. | No express indemnity; no implied indemnity without proper relationship; CJRA changes. | Questions of fact remain; indemnity claim not foreclosed. |
| Did the circuit court properly grant summary judgment on the third-party complaint and related cross-claims? | Court should deny summary judgment to permit development of arguments on settlement, discovery, and UCATA. | Summary judgment proper given limitations, statutes, and lack of express indemnity. | Summary-judgment rulings reversed in part; remanded for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Martin Farm Enterprises, Inc. v. Hayes, 320 Ark. 205 (1995) (third-party mootness when primary action resolved)
- Steward v. Statler, 371 Ark. 351 (2007) (remedial retroactivity of procedural statutes)
- Shelton v. St. Vincent Infirmary Med. Ctr., 2013 Ark. 38 (2013) (CJRA and joint liability effects; retroactivity context)
- St. Vincent Infirmary Med. Ctr. v. Shelton, 425 S.W.3d 761 (Ark. 2013) (addressed CJRA implications and contribution rights)
- TEMCO Constr., LLC v. Gann, 427 S.W.3d 651 (2013) (preservation of claims under UCATA after CJRA)
- Larson Machine, Inc. v. Wallace, 600 S.W.2d 1 (Ark. 1980) (indemnity principles based on equitable restitution)