TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Transamerica Insurance v. Trico International, Inc.

TRANSAMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY, a California corporation v. TRICO INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Nevada corporation

Transamerica Ins. v. Trico Int'l, Inc., 716 P.2d 1041 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Arizona · State Appellate Courts
Decided
November 27, 1985
Docket
No. 2 CA-CIV 5488
Judges
Hathaway, Lacagnina, Livermore
Citations
716 P.2d 1041149 Ariz. 1041985 Ariz. App. LEXIS 833

Opinion of the Court — Livermore

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

OPINION LIVERMORE, Judge.

Defendant, Trico International, Inc., designed an irrigation and flood control system for the insured of plaintiff, Transamerica Insurance Company. Flood waters subsequently escaped from that system and the insured was held strictly liable for the resulting damages. Transamerica, as subrogee, now seeks indemnity from Trico on the theory that Trico’s negligent design of the system caused the escape of the flood waters. The issue in this case is whether the finding of liability against the insured precludes, as the trial court held, suit against Trico for indemnity. We hold that it does not and reverse.

Indemnity is not a mechanism to defeat the rule, which existed at the time of this loss, that there can be no contribution among joint tortfeasors. If the judgment against Transamerica’s insured found the insured actively at fault, then that finding would preclude indemnification. But the judgment was premised on strict liability rather than fault. If passive negligence does not defeat indemnification, a fortiori strict liability does not. Busy Bee Buffet v. Ferrell, 82 Ariz. 192 , 310 P.2d 817 (1957); Estes Co. v. Aztec Construction, Inc., 139 *105 Ariz. 166 , 677 P.2d 939 (App.1983); Sequoia Mfg. Co. v. Halec Constr. Co., 117 Ariz. 11, 20 , 570 P.2d 782, 791 (App.1977); Transcon Lines v. Barnes, 17 Ariz.App. 428 , 498 P.2d 502 (1972); Restatement of Restitution §§ 93, 96 (1937).

The judgment is reversed.

HATHAWAY, P.J., and LACAGNINA, J., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1986: 119862026peak 1986 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Shea v. Superior Court of Maricopa County723 P.2d 89 (Ariz. 1986)

Most recent

  1. Shea v. Superior Court of Maricopa County723 P.2d 89 (Ariz. 1986)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 5

DepthCaseCited by
Busy Bee Buffet, Inc. v. Ferrell, 310 P.2d 817 (Ariz. 1957) 55
Sequoia Mfg. Co. v. Halec Constr. Co., 570 P.2d 782 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977) 40
Transcon Lines v. Barnes, 498 P.2d 502 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1972) 34
Estes Co. v. Aztec Constr., Inc., 677 P.2d 939 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983) 26

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list