DocketNumber: No. CV 333100
Citation Numbers: 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 12516-AA
Judges: GRAY, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 11/17/1995
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
The plaintiff, C.N. Flagg (Flagg), filed a six count complaint against the defendant/third party plaintiff, Reaction Thermal Systems, Inc. (Reaction), alleging that it manufactured and sold a defective product known as Reactol. Reactol is a brine solution used as a substitute for ethylene glycol-based fluids and acts as an antifreeze agent in air conditioning chillers. Flagg installed an air conditioning system at the Government Center in New Haven. Subsequently, some of the evaptor tubes in chiller no. 1 of the system burst, causing damages and destruction to Flagg's property.
Reaction's third party complaint, as amended, alleges, interalia, (1) that any property damages sustained by Flagg were due to the negligence of Kenetech Energy Systems, Inc. (KES) and/or Kenetech Facilities Management (KFM) because they added a significant amount of water to chiller unit no. 1, thereby diluting the Reactol and causing a freeze-up in the system; and (2) that KES and/or KFM were in exclusive control of the process of mixing and adding water to the air conditioning system and, therefore, had exclusive control of the final mixture of water and antifreeze solution which was poured into the system. Reaction seeks indemnification by KES and/or KFM for any judgment recovered by Flagg, in addition to counsel fees and costs. CT Page 12516-BB
The motion to strike tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. RK Constructors, Inc. v. Fusco Corp.,
The third-party plaintiff contends that it is not required to allege an independent relationship to sustain its claim for indemnification. Moreover, Reaction argues that its complaint sufficiently alleges the existence of an independent legal relationship between the corporations.
Indemnification "involves a claim for reimbursement in full from one on whom primary liability is claimed to rest. . . ."Kyrtatas v. Stop Shop, Inc.,
Active/passive indemnification constitutes "an exception to the general rule that there is no right of indemnification among joint tortfeasors," Id., citing Ferryman v. Groton,
A successful plea of indemnification for active/passive negligence requires that a party allege facts sufficient to prove: (1) the other party was negligent; (2) that other party's negligence was the direct, immediate cause of the injury; (3) the other party was in exclusive control over the situation; (4) the CT Page 12516-CC party seeking indemnification did not know of the other party's negligence, had no reason to anticipate it, and could reasonably rely on the other party to act without negligence. Id.
Furthermore, the party seeking indemnification must establish that the alleged indemnitor owed that party a duty based upon an independent legal relationship. Atkinson v. Berloni,
"The Atkinson v. Berloni Appellate Court decision sets out the most recent exposition on this issue from either of the two appellate courts in this state, and as such, it is binding on the Superior Court." Lemond v. Price, Superior Court, JD Milford-Ansonia, at Milford, Docket No. 039975 (August 4, 1993, Flynn, J.) (
The third party complaint supports the claim of an independent legal relationship by alleging: (1) that KES and/or KFM altered the product, Reactol, sold by Reaction; (2) that KES and/or KFM were charged with servicing and/or maintaining the air conditioning system which utilized the Reaction Ice System, (RIS) a product sold by Reaction; or (3) Reaction contacted and provided a bid for the purchase of the Reaction Ice System and Reactol to Flagg. These allegations are sufficient to show the existence of an independent legal duty owed by the third party defendants because of their use of the product Reactol and because they are charged with the obligation to service and/or maintain the air conditioning system which utilized the RIS. Moreover, by using Reaction's products in a commercial setting, the third party defendants had a duty to use the products in a reasonable manner for a foreseeable use.
If proven, the factual allegation that KES and/or KFM altered the level of Reactol used in the air conditioning system, thereby causing a system freeze-up, constitutes a compensable claim by Reaction. CT Page 12516-DD
The motion to strike is denied.
BY THE COURT
Leander C. Gray, Judge