Holly Sugar Corp. v. Union Supply Co., No. C-1175
| Docket Nº | No. C-1175 |
| Citation | 572 P.2d 148, 194 Colo. 316 |
| Case Date | December 05, 1977 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
Page 148
v.
The UNION SUPPLY COMPANY, a Colorado Corporation, Respondent.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 27, 1977.
[194 Colo. 317]
Page 149
Zarlengo, Mott & Zarlengo, John C. Mott, Denver, for petitioner.Yegge, Hall & Evans, John R. Trigg, Jeffery B. Stalder, Denver, for respondent.
PRINGLE, Chief Justice.
This is an action seeking a dismissal on the merits of a third-party complaint brought by the Union Supply Company (Union) as third-party plaintiff, against the Holly Sugar Corporation (Holly) as third-party defendant. The district court dismissed the third-party complaint without prejudice on purely procedural grounds. The court of appeals, however, ruled that the trial court had erred in dismissing Union's third-party action against Holly. Colo.App., 561 P.2d 355 (1976). We reversed the judgment of the court of appeals.
Holly is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in Colorado Springs. Union is a Colorado corporation with its principal place of business in Denver. Following negotiations which began in October 1967, in Colorado, Holly and Union signed a contract by which Union was to supply a wet pulp conveyor system for use in a plant which Holly owned in Montana. The contract was fulfilled and the conveyor was installed.
An employee of Holly, Larry E. Pust, was injured by the conveyor system in the Montana plant. He was paid personal injury benefits by Holly under the Montana Workmen's Compensation Act. Montana's Act, like Colorado's, is an exclusive remedy statute immunizing the employer from "any other liability whatsoever" for the injury. See section 92-204, [194 Colo. 318] R.C.M.1947. 1
Page 150
After his settlement with Holly, employee Pust proceeded against Union on various product liability theories in Denver District Court. Union responded by joining Holly as a third-party defendant, seeking indemnification for any liability which it might incur. Holly's motion for summary judgment, based upon the "exclusive remedy" provision of the Montana Workmen's Compensation Act, was denied by the trial court. The court did, however, dismiss Holly without prejudice on the basis of C.R.C.P. 14(a). It held that since Mr. Pust could not sue his employer, Holly, directly under the Montana Act, Holly could not be joined indirectly as a third-party defendant.
After a full trial, the district court granted Union's motion to dismiss against Pust. That ruling is the subject of a separate matter now pending before this court.
The court of appeals reversed the dismissal of Holly. In pertinent part, the court held that Montana law governed Union's third-party claim for indemnity. Further, the court interpreted Montana law as permitting Union to collect from Holly despite...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey v. Honeywell Protective Services, Honeywell, Inc.
...409 (N.D.Ga.1968); Trammel v. Appalachia Electric Cooperative, 135 F.Supp. 512 (E.D.Tenn.1955); Holly Sugar Corp. v. Union Supply Co., 194 Colo. 316, 572 P.2d 148 (1977); Hilzer v. MacDonald, 169 Colo. 230, 454 P.2d 928 (1969); Houdaille Industries, Inc. v. Edwards, 374 So.2d 490 (Fla.1979)......
-
A AND B CONST., INC. v. Atlas Roofing and Skylight Co., No. 93-0162L.
...Co., Inc. v. Superior Court of Merced Co., 56 Cal.App.3d 650, 128 Cal.Rptr. 541 (5 Dist.1976); Holly Sugar Corp. v. Union Supply Co., 194 Colo. 316, 572 P.2d 148 (1977) (reviewing both Colorado and Montana law); Hilzer v. MacDonald, 169 Colo. 230, 454 P.2d 928, 931 (1969); Sargent Ind., Inc......
-
Williams v. White Mountain Const. Co., Inc., No. 86SA100
...who complied with the Compensation Act were immune from third-party claims of indemnification. Holly Sugar Corp. v. Union Supply Co., 194 Colo. 316, 572 P.2d 148 (1977); Hilzer v. MacDonald, 169 Colo. 230, 454 P.2d 928 5 In addition to federal courts, Halcyon Lines v. Haenn Ship Ceiling & R......
-
Union Supply Co. v. Pust, No. C-1174
...trial court dismissed this third-party action before trial. On separate appeal, we held, in Holly Sugar Corp. v. Union Supply Co., Colo., 572 P.2d 148, that this dismissal was proper. This court ruled that Holly Sugar could not be held liable in such a common law indemnity action under eith......
-
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey v. Honeywell Protective Services, Honeywell, Inc.
...409 (N.D.Ga.1968); Trammel v. Appalachia Electric Cooperative, 135 F.Supp. 512 (E.D.Tenn.1955); Holly Sugar Corp. v. Union Supply Co., 194 Colo. 316, 572 P.2d 148 (1977); Hilzer v. MacDonald, 169 Colo. 230, 454 P.2d 928 (1969); Houdaille Industries, Inc. v. Edwards, 374 So.2d 490 (Fla.1979)......
-
A AND B CONST., INC. v. Atlas Roofing and Skylight Co., No. 93-0162L.
...Co., Inc. v. Superior Court of Merced Co., 56 Cal.App.3d 650, 128 Cal.Rptr. 541 (5 Dist.1976); Holly Sugar Corp. v. Union Supply Co., 194 Colo. 316, 572 P.2d 148 (1977) (reviewing both Colorado and Montana law); Hilzer v. MacDonald, 169 Colo. 230, 454 P.2d 928, 931 (1969); Sargent Ind., Inc......
-
Williams v. White Mountain Const. Co., Inc., No. 86SA100
...who complied with the Compensation Act were immune from third-party claims of indemnification. Holly Sugar Corp. v. Union Supply Co., 194 Colo. 316, 572 P.2d 148 (1977); Hilzer v. MacDonald, 169 Colo. 230, 454 P.2d 928 5 In addition to federal courts, Halcyon Lines v. Haenn Ship Ceiling & R......
-
Union Supply Co. v. Pust, No. C-1174
...trial court dismissed this third-party action before trial. On separate appeal, we held, in Holly Sugar Corp. v. Union Supply Co., Colo., 572 P.2d 148, that this dismissal was proper. This court ruled that Holly Sugar could not be held liable in such a common law indemnity action under eith......