Oregon v. Barkman3/21/1990
COURT OF APPEALS OF OREGON
Nos. 88C-10295, CA A50219
1990.OR.41353 ; 101 Or. App. 20; 789 P.2d 8
March 21, 1990
STATE OF OREGON, BY AND THROUGH THE STATE ACCIDENT INSURANCE FUND CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF,
v.
BARKMAN ET AL, DEFENDANTS, AND BARKMAN ET AL, APPELLANTS, V. ASSOCIATED OREGON LOGGERS, INC., ET AL, RESPONDENTS
Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County. C. Gregory West, Judge. No. 88C-10295.
Susan D. Cardoni, Portland, argued the cause for appellants. With her on the brief were John R. Barker, James M. Callahan and Bittner & Barker, P.C., Portland.
William G. Wheatley, Eugene, argued the cause for respondents Associated Oregon Loggers, AOL Services, Inc., and AOL-SAIF Trust. With him on the brief were Denise G. Fjordbeck and Jaqua & Wheatley, P.C., Eugene.
William F. Gary, Eugene, argued the cause for respondents Loggers Assurance Company, Inc. With him on the brief were Sharon A. Rudnick and Harrang, Long, Watkinson, Arnold & Laird, P.C., Eugene.
Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Newman and Deits, Judges.
Richardson
Defendants appeal the trial court's summary judgment for third-party defendants (collectively AOL) and the ensuing dismissal of defendants' claims for indemnity and contribution. SAIF Corporation, the plaintiff in the underlying action, had extensive business dealings with AOL. Defendants are accountants who provided professional services to AOL. SAIF alleges that defendants' negligence and misrepresentations about AOL's business and financial affairs, in conjunction with those services, caused damage to SAIF. Defendants allege that incorrect data was supplied to them and that the misrepresentations were induced by officers of AOL. AOL's supporting evidence for its summary judgment motion was the "settlement agreement" between it and SAIF, in which SAIF agreed, inter alia, not to pursue certain claims that it had or could bring against AOL.
Defendants assign error to the summary judgment on their indemnity and contribution claims. Although the order granting summary judgment does not reveal the precise basis for the ruling, AOL defends the judgment on the indemnity claim on two grounds: The settlement agreement eliminates any possible common liability to SAIF and, as between it and defendants, "the obligation ought to be discharged by the latter," as a matter of law. Ore-Ida Foods v. Indian Head, 290 Or 909, 920, 627 P2d 469 (1981).
In response to the first argument, defendants rely on Huff v. Shiomi, 73 Or App 605, 699 P2d 1178 (1985), where we held that the running of the statute of ultimate repose on the plaintiff's claim against the third-party defendant Kirkman did not defeat the common liability element of the defendant's third-party indemnity action. We explained:
" ny failure by this plaintiff to bring a timely action against Kirkman has no bearing on whether Kirkman was liable to her at the time her claim accrued. For that reason, this case is distinguishable from Ore-Ida Foods v. Indian Head, 290 Or 909, 627 P2d 469 (1981), on which Kirkman relies. The court
held there that an employer which had paid worker's compensation survivor's benefits to the unmarried cohabitant of a deceased worker could not recover indemnity from the person who negligently killed the worker, because the
Page 1 2 3 Oregon Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|