DocketNumber: No. 083710
Citation Numbers: 1990 Conn. Super. Ct. 3824
Judges: DeMAYO, J.
Filed Date: 11/2/1990
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
The defendant Sea Quest has based its motion to strike on case law and statute law regarding an indemnification claim in the context of a product liability suit. Such a claim cannot survive a motion to strike, being abrogated by C.G.S.
However, the court perceives this cross claim as sounding in warranty. As such, it would appear to be allowed by C.G.S.
In the absence of specific statutory prohibition, a cross complaint may be addressed by the defendant against a co-defendant as long as it relates to the transaction upon which the main case is founded. Balaska v. The Town Country Chevrolet Company et al,
Though the cross complaint will be governed by title 42a, the Uniform Commercial Code, that should present no obstacle to the adjudication of the rights of all the parties in a single action.
DeMayo, J.