305 P.3d 832
Mont.2013Background
- Plane crash in February 2007 near Bozeman involving Metro Aviation's aircraft; victims Erickson and Dengel Estates settled claims with Metro’s insurers before litigation; United States not a party to Erickson or Dengel settlements; Metro sues under FTCA in Montana federal court asserting indemnity and/or contribution for settlements; Utah federal court certified three Montana questions about contribution/indemnity; Montana Supreme Court accepted and answered the questions; court held against Metro on all three issues.
- Metro sought contribution from the United States for settlements paid to Erickson and Dengel estates; Erickson settlement occurred without litigation; Dengel action was filed, Metro settled before trial; the question is whether § 27-1-703 allows contribution when victim did not file a court action and whether a stand-alone contribution action is permissible.
- Montana’s § 27-1-703 permits contribution only within a single action among joint tortfeasors; stand-alone contribution against a nonparty is not contemplated; common-law indemnity is not recognized where parties are not in pari delicto and Montana law discourages indemnity between joint tortfeasors.
- Court concluded: (1) no contribution where the victim did not sue and there was no party to an action for Metro to join; (2) no standalone contribution action against a nonparty when a pending action exists; (3) no common-law indemnity for remote or passive negligence in this context; Montana law relies on § 27-1-703 for apportionment of fault rather than indemnity.
- The decision clarifies that contribution and indemnity rights in Montana arise and operate within the confines of a single action, not via pre-litigation settlements or separate subsequent actions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can a settling party seek contribution from a nonparty when the victim did not sue? | Metro: Erickson claim is an 'action', so nonparty contribution is available. | U.S.: no action against Metro; no party to an action, so no contribution. | No |
| Does Montana permit a separate, stand-alone contribution action against a nonparty when a defendant settles with a plaintiff in a pending action? | Metro: separate contribution action allowed. | U.S.: only joinder within the original action is permitted. | No |
| Does Montana recognize common-law indemnity when the indemnitor’s conduct is remote or passive? | Metro seeks full indemnity due to 'clean hands' argument. | Indemnity not recognized among joint tortfeasors; equitable relief not appropriate. | No |
| Does § 27-1-703, MCA allocate fault only among named parties or also include those settled or released? | Statute should consider settlements. | Statute requires apportionment among listed parties; settlements not included. | No |
| Is indiscriminate application of indemnity or broad interpretation of 'action' consistent with Montana law? | Broaden the concept to pre-litigation settlements. | Do not expand beyond statute’s text. | No |
Key Cases Cited
- State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC, 353 Mont. 173 (2009 MT) (contribution is a statutory right; aims to allocate liability among tortfeasors)
- Durden v. Hydro Flame Corp., 295 Mont. 318 (1999 MT) (indemnity shifts entire loss; not allowed among joint tortfeasors)
- State ex rel. Deere & Co. v. District Court, 730 P.2d 396 (1986 MT) (indemnity premised on active vs. passive conduct not practical)
- Butte-Silver Bow County v. State, 220 P.3d 1115 (2009 MT) (state cannot obtain common-law indemnity from county where it had fault)
- Panasuk v. Seaton, 277 F. Supp. 979 (D. Mont. 1968) (federal indemnity principles cited regarding tortfeasor liability)
- Jones v. Northwestern Auto Supply Co., 18 P.2d 305 (Mont. 1932) (general rule of joint and several liability among tortfeasors)