Opinion
C.A. No. 08C-06-250 JAP.
Submitted: November 16, 2009.
Decided: February 19, 2010.
On Third Party Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.Patrick G. Rock, Esquire, Heckler Frabizzio, Wilmington, Delaware.
Nancy Chrissinger Cobb, Esquire, Chrissinger and Baumberger, Wilmington, Delaware.
Dear Counsel:
In 2007, Plaintiff George Thompson's left arm was severed by a shear cutting machine when he attempted to clear a piece of scrap metal that was jamming the machine. At the time of the accident, Plaintiff was employed by Third-Party Defendant Metal Masters Food Service Equipment Company, d/b/a Eagle Group ("Metal Masters"). The issue presently before the Court is whether Defendant Automated Machinery, Inc. ("Automated") can maintain a third-party complaint against Metal Masters for contribution or indemnification.
In 2003, Metal Masters entered into a contract with Automated to perform repairs and retrofit the machine that later caused injury to Plaintiff. Under the contract, Metal Masters would perform some of the work itself, including installing safety mats around the machine. The purpose of the safety mats was that when a certain amount of pressure was applied to the mat, the machine would shut down, thereby eliminating hazards presented by someone standing too close to the machine.
Plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court against Automated, among many others, on various theories of liability, including negligence for "failing to properly and adequately repair, maintain and inspect said product, specifically the safety mat system." Automated then filed a third-party complaint against Metal Masters, seeking indemnification and/or contribution.
Compl. at ¶ 31(o).
Standard of Review
Summary judgment is appropriate where "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." When considering a motion for summary judgment, the facts must be viewed "in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Furthermore, "[f]rom those accepted facts the court will draw all rational inferences which favor the non-moving party."The contribution claims
Pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 6302, the right of contribution exists between joint tortfeasors. The term "joint tortfeasors" is defined as "2 or more persons jointly or severally liable in tort for the same injury to person or property." As a matter of law, however, Metal Masters and Automated cannot be joint tortfeasors. It is undisputed that Metal Masters paid workers' compensation to Plaintiff for his work injury. Pursuant to the exclusivity provision of workers' compensation law, the payment of compensation to Plaintiff is exclusive and precludes the assertion of any other remedies against Metal Masters. Therefore, Plaintiffs cannot sue Metal Masters, and thus Metal Masters cannot be found to be jointly liable with Automated. Because Metal Masters cannot be a joint tortfeasor, Automated cannot maintain a claim for contribution against it. Accordingly, Metal Masters is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the contribution claims.The indemnification claims
Although Automated is not entitled to contribution, it may be entitled to indemnification. The exclusivity provision does not bar a third party's contractual claim for indemnification against the injured party's employer for breach of contract, express or implied. While there is no allegation that the contract between Metal Masters and Automated contained an express indemnification provision, an obligation to indemnify may be implied from the circumstances of the case.
SW (Delaware) Inc. v. Am. Consumer Indus., Inc., 450 A.2d 887, 888 (Del. 1982).
See Davis v. R.C. Peoples, Inc., 2003 WL 21733013 (Del. Super.) (holding that under certain factual scenarios "a party to a construction contract may claim an implied right to indemnification when it has failed to secure such protection in its contract documents").
The proverbial seminal case here is Diamond State Telephone Company v. University of Delaware, in which the Delaware Supreme Court held that contractors may be liable on a theory of implied indemnity if they breach "an obligation to perform [their] work with due care." Specifically, the court identified the following three factual scenarios where the employer could be liable to a third party for implied indemnity: (1) where the employer creates a dangerous condition on the third party's premises and injury results; (2) where the employer knowingly permits the employee to work under dangerous conditions caused by the third party and injury results; and (3) where the employer activates a latent dangerous condition created by the third party and injury results.
Diamond State, 269 A.2d at 57.
Id. at 57-58.
Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, Automated could establish a claim for indemnification against Metal Masters under one of the scenarios listed above. The record here is not fully developed, and at this stage of the proceedings the Court cannot rule out the possibility that Automated can show that Metal Masters is liable under an implied contract. As the Supreme Court noted in Diamond State, "whether or not there exists liability to indemnify a third party depends entirely upon the factual circumstances surrounding the incident."
Id. at 58.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, Metal Masters' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to the contribution claims, but DENIED as to the indemnification claims. Nothing in this opinion precludes Metal Masters from bringing a renewed motion once the record is complete.IT IS SO ORDERED.