DocketNumber: Nos. 097840, 097106
Citation Numbers: 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 7873
Judges: PELLEGRINO, J.
Filed Date: 8/4/1994
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
Carmody Torrance, Furey, Donaocan, Eddy, Kocsis, Tracy Daly and Gager Henry for plaintiffs.
Secor Cassidy McPartland, Coughlin Malone and Paul A. Scholder for defendants. These three cases, Hughes v. Arett Sales Corp., et al (Hughes), Rivera v. Wells Fargo Alarm, et al (Rivera), Lodge v. Arett Sales Corp., et al (Lodge), arise from an accident in which a fire truck struck a tree, killing firefighters Howard Hughes and Heriberto Rivera and injuring Raymond Lodge. The fire truck was driven by defendant James Morotto while responding to a false alarm. All three of the above plaintiffs have sued Wells Fargo Alarm System (Wells Fargo), Arett Sales Corp. (Arett), and Advanced Automatic Sprinkler, Inc. (Sprinkler), for causing or allowing a false fire alarm. The City of Waterbury has intervened in all of the cases in connection with the recovery of Workers' Compensation benefits.
In all three of the above matters, the defendant, Arett, filed a third party complaint against firefighter, James A. Morotto, Jr., the driver of said fire truck. Thereafter, in all of the above cases, the defendants, Sprinkler and Wells Fargo, filed cross complaints against the third party defendant, Morotto. Morotto has filed these motions for summary judgment in all of the matters against the third party plaintiff, Arett, and against the cross complainants, Sprinkler and Wells Fargo.
The claims of Arett, Sprinkler and Wells Fargo in connection with their respective third party complaints and cross complaints are essentially the same. They all claim that Morotto should indemnify them on the theory of active/passive negligence as held in the cases of Ferryman v. Groton,
The cross complaints of Sprinkler and Wells Fargo, in each of the above cases are in one count alleging indemnification based on theory of active/passive negligence. The cross complaint of Arett in all of these matters is framed in two counts. Count two alleges indemnification in the theory of active/passive negligence and is similar to the claims of all the cross complainants. Count one of Arett's third party complaint seems to alleges indemnification pursuant to §
The court will first deal with count one of the third party complaint, and then with the second count of the third party complaint, and the claims in the cross complaints.
As to count one of Arett's third party complaint in all of the actions, that defendant entitles the first count "As to James A. Morotto, Jr., pursuant to C.G.S. §
Section
Arett's claim under §
The second count of the third party complaint filed by Arett and the cross complaints of Wells Fargo and Sprinkler all allege indemnification based on a theory of active/passive negligence. "`Ordinarily, there is no right of indemnity . . . between tortfeasors.'" (Citation omitted.) Ferryman v. Groton, CT Page 7876
In the second count of Arett's third party complaint, and in the cross complaints filed by Sprinkler and Wells Fargo, the four elements for a claim of indemnification as set forth inFerryman have been alleged. However, our Appellate Court has said that in addition to these four elements, the plaintiff must also show that they have an independent legal relationship with the active tortfeasor that gives rise to a claim for indemnification. Atkinson v. Berloni,
There are no disputed issues of fact with regard to the claims of Arett, Wells Fargo and Sprinkler in connection with their claims for indemnification as embodied in the third party complaint and cross complaints. Practice book § 384;Scrapchansky v. Plainfield,
/s/ Pellegrino ---------------- PELLEGRINO, J. CT Page 7877