Union Pacific R. Co. v. Caballo Coal Co.
2011 WL 489696
| Wyo. | 2011Background
- UP seeks indemnification from CCC for $400,000 settlement and related attorney fees in Mr. Riecke's FELA suit; indemnity limited to loss arising from CCC's negligence or wrongful act.
- Riecke, UP employee, injured on CCC property while UP transported coal from CCC mine; CCC did not control UP's employee or safety practices.
- UP tendered defense and sought indemnification under a December 10, 2001 indemnity agreement; CCC denied defense and liability, counterclaim asserted for its own fees.
- District court granted CCC summary judgment on indemnification and dismissed UP's related claim as moot; CCC's counterclaim proceeded.
- This Court holds: indemnity requires CCC's negligence to trigger liability; however, the district court erred by sua sponte granting summary judgment on CCC's counterclaim for attorney fees without a motion or notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CCC's duty to indemnify requires CCC's negligence | UP: indemnity triggered by CCC's negligence | CCC: no duty unless CCC negligent | UP's indemnity claim rejected; negligence prerequisite required and not shown |
| Whether the district court should have granted partial summary judgment on settlement reasonableness | UP: settlement reasonable under contract | CCC: no dispositive issue on reasonableness | Moot; resolved issue did not rely on CCC's duty to indemnify |
| Whether the district court erred by granting summary judgment on CCC's counterclaim for attorney fees without a motion | UP: procedures required motion and notice | CCC: no motion; due process concerns | Reversed; remand for proper Rule 56 proceedings and notice |
Key Cases Cited
- Diamond Surface, Inc. v. Cleveland, 963 P.2d 996 (Wyo. 1998) (indemnity scope defined by contract language; express indemnity controls)
- Wyoming Johnson, Inc. v. Stag Industries, Inc., 662 P.2d 96 (Wyo. 1983) (all-inclusive indemnity provisions disfavored; acts of negligence must be of indemnitor)
- Hittel v. WOTCO, Inc., 996 P.2d 673 (Wyo. 2000) (premises owner owes duty to independent contractor's employee only with pervasive control/affirmative safety duties)
- Franks v. Indep. Prod. Co., 2004 WY 97, 96 P.3d 484 (Wyo. 2004) (duty analysis for independent contractor scenarios under premises ownership)
- Moncrief v. Louisiana Land and Exploration Co., 861 P.2d 516 (Wyo. 1993) (contract interpretation and intent governs indemnity language)
- Ultra Resources, Inc. v. Hartman, 2010 WY 36, 226 P.3d 889 (Wyo. 2010) (contract interpretation; focus on language and reasonable meaning at use)
- M & M Auto Outlet v. Hill Inv. Corp., 2010 WY 56, 230 P.3d 1099 (Wyo. 2010) (contract interpretation; de novo standard for questions of contract meaning)