This is а permissive interlocutory appeal pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 4(B)(6). Two separately filed appeals stemming from the same transaction were consоlidated for the convenience of the parties, allowing a single record to be filed for both actions. For purposes of review, the two appeals will be addressed separately. The parties in the action addressed herein are Rotee, Division of Orbitron, Inc. (Rotee) and C & W Fabricating, Inc. (C & W). Each party is appealing from the trial court’s denial of its motion for summary judgment.
The procedural history and facts pertinent to the appeal disclose that in January 1990, Murray, Equipment Inc. (Murray, Inc.) filed suit against C & W alleging inter alia a breach of implied warranties and the defective design and manufacture of 61 stands which were purchased by Murray, Inc. from C & W in January 1988. The stands were purchased to hold 2,500 gallon agricultural chemical tanks sold by Rotee. The total purchase price of the stands was $37,890.00.
The president of Murray, Inc., Steven Murray, had contacted Rotec’s representative, Mike Melkus, desiring to purchase tanks and stands as a package. Melkus informed Murray that Rotee preferred to sell tanks only. Melkus told Murray that C & W manufactured stands for Rotec’s 2,500 gallon tanks.
Melkus and C & W’s president, Allen Wade, had previously discussed the fabrication of stands to conform to Rotec’s 2,500 gallon tanks. There is no dispute that Mel-kus supplied a picture of a stand being fabricated by another company and that he approached Wade in an attempt to ferret out a better price for the stands. A dispute exists as to whether Wade measured a stand himself or Melkus supplied measurements which appear on a copy of the picture.
Murray, Inc. had a prior business relationship with C & W. Murray contacted Wade regarding the tank stands. Wade assured Murray that C & W could manu *535 faсture Rotee tank stands. Murray-stressed that Murray, Inc., a wholesaler, was under time constraints.
C & W timely delivered the tank stands. However, in early spring when the storage tanks were filled, some of the stands buckled from the weight of the liquid. Murray contacted Wade regarding the problem. The two concluded that the stands buckled due to improper installation. Although a representative of Rotee was contacted, Ro-tee did not offer an explanation for the problem.
Murray, Inc.’s large customer for whom the tanks and stands werе purchased insisted that the stands be replaced. Murray, Inc. replaced all but one of the stands at its expense.
Prompted by additional stand failures and an engineering report commissioned by Murray, Inc., Murray, Inc. filed suit against C & W. C & W filed its initial motion for summary judgment in December 1990. Summary judgment was denied in March 1991; however, the trial court certified the matter for interlocutory appeal. In July 1991, this Court denied C & W’s petition for interlocutory appeal.
In November 1991, C & W filed a third-party complaint against Rotee. On Rotee’s motion for a change of venue, the cause was venued to Whitley County. On June 12, 1992, C & W filed a motion for summary judgment against Rotee, which Rotee opposed. Rotee moved for summary judgment in its favor on June 18, 1992. On October 9, 1992, the court denied the motions for summary judgment. The denial was certified for interlocutory appeal. This appeal ensued. Other facts as asserted by the parties appear below as necessаry to a resolution of the appeal.
As restated and consolidated, the issues on appeal are:
(1) whether Rotee can be found liable to C & W on an indemnification theory of recovery; and
(2) whether genuine issues of material fact exist which would preclude summary judgment for either party.
The parties to a summary judgment proceeding must expressly designate to the trial court evidentiary matter which supports their respective positions. Summary judgment is appropriate if the designated evidentiary matter shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Brockmeyer v. Fort Wayne Public Transp.
(1993), Ind. App.,
In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, this Court stands in the shoes of the trial court. This Court must liberally construe all designated evidentiary matter in favor of the non-moving party and resolve any doubt against the moving party. Even if it appears that the non-moving party will not succeed at trial, summary judgment is inappropriate where material facts conflict or undisputed facts lead to conflicting inferencеs. Id. The existence of a genuine issue of material fact shall not be ground for reversal on appeal unless such fact was designated to the trial court and is included in the record. Id. at 606-607.
Generally, the right of indemnification arises only by contract, express or implied, or by statutory obligation.
See Indianapolis Power v. Brad Snodgrass
(1991), Ind.,
*536 Four Winns, Inc. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co. (1984), Ind.App.,471 N.E.2d 1187 , 1189; see also Indianapolis Power, supra,578 N.E.2d at 671 (derivative or constructive liability to third party arises only as against one who has by his wrongful act caused liability to be imposed upon in-demnitee who is free from fault).
Typically, common-law claims for indemnity arise in tort actions involving such liabilities as respondeat superior or arise in breach of warranty situations where the retailer is sued upon implied warranties which are identical to those imposed upоn the manufacturer’s sale to the retailer.
Coca-Cola Bottling Co.-Goshen v. Vendo Co.
(1983), Ind.App.,
Murray, Inc.’s complaint alleged two separate avenues for relief. The complaint sounded in tort, alleging defective design, fabrication, and material. Also, Murray, Inc. alleged breaches of implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for ordinary and a particular purpose. C & W’s third-party complaint alleged that the design was provided by Rotee and requested indemnification. 1
Through an affidavit by Wade, C & W contends that Rotec’s representative provided a picture of a stand, allowed Wade to inspect a stand, and then provided measurements taken from a stand fabricated by an unknown company. C & W was asked to fabricate an identical stand. Ro-tee did not provide mechanical drawings and did not request an engineering study. From 1985 to 1988, C & W fabricated the stands for Rotee.
Rotеc’s representative, Mike Melkus, indicated in his affidavit that he provided a picture of a tank stand which had been purchased from another source. Melkus assisted Wadе in measuring a stand. However, considering the interlineations in his affidavit, Melkus contends that he did not write the dimensions of the stand which appear on the picture. Genuine issues of mаterial fact exist as to whether Rotee “designed” the stand and which portions of the specifications were provided by Rotee.
Additionally, Rotee protests that it did nоt have a contract with and was not in privity with either C & W or Murray. However, factual determinations which may form a sufficient nexus to bind Rotee remain. It is undisputed that Rotee could not have engaged in the sale of its 2,500 gallon storage tanks without the availability of stands to hold the tanks. When approached by Murray, Inc. in an effort to purchase tanks and stаnds, Rotee refused to sell stands. Instead Rotee referred Murray, Inc. to C & W.
See Richards v. Goerg Boat & Mtrs., Inc.
(1979),
Because in the companion case the appeal was dismissed and the cause was returned for trial, other indemnification issues remain such as whеther C & W will be *537 found liable in the suit by Murray, Inc. Accordingly, the trial court properly determined that neither party was entitled to summary judgment.
The trial court’s denial of summary judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Notes
. Rotee contends that C & W prayed only for indemnification on the basis of the imрlied warranties; thus, according to Rotee, C & W is foreclosed from pursuing any common-law theory. Such is not the case, C & W's complaint specifically identified and incorporated Murray's complaint into its own. C & W may proceed on any of the theories raised in Murray’s complaint.
Cf. Richards v. Goerg Boat & Mtrs., Inc.
(1979),