 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Booker v. Sears Roebuck & Co.12/5/1989
As Corrected December 7, and December 12, 1989.
Rehearing Denied January 30, 1990.
TAMMY BOOKER, NOW LOAR, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM O. BOOKER, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
SEARS ROEBUCK & COMPANY, KIAMICHI VALLEY LP GAS CO., J.D. FITE, d/b/a CLAYTON PROPANE, INC., APPELLANTS, AND KERR-MCGEE REFINING CORPORATION, APPELLEE.
Appeal from the District Court of Pushmataha County; Lowell R. Burgess, Jr., Judge.
Williams, Clark, Baker & Earl, P.A. by Joseph F. Clark, Jr., Tulsa, for appellants, Kiamichi Valley LP Gas Co. and J.D. Fite d/b/a Clayton Propane, Inc.
Pierce Couch Hendrickson Johnston & Baysinger by Calvin W. Hendrickson, D. Lynn Babb, and S. Marc Walls, Oklahoma City, for appellee.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED FOR LIMITED PURPOSE.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: HODGES, Justice.
The appeal before us is the result of an action filed by Tammy Booker, now Loar (hereinafter plaintiff), against the distributor and manufacturer of a wall heater, Sears Roebuck & Company and White Rogers Division of Emerson Electric Company respectively. Also included as defendants were the propane gas wholesaler, J.D. Fite d/b/a Clayton Propane, Inc. (hereinafter wholesaler) and the gas retailer, Kiamichi Valley LP Gas Co. (hereinafter retailer); the petition contained allegations of negligence against both of these defendants. By an amended petition, plaintiff added the gas refiner, Kerr-McGee Refining Corporation (hereinafter Kerr-McGee). Prior to trial the plaintiff settled her claim with the distributor and manufacturer and dismissed all charges of negligence against the remaining defendants. After a nine day jury trial on the theory of products liability a single form verdict was returned in favor of the defendants. Six months prior to the beginning of trial the retailer and wholesaler had requested of Kerr-McGee that it take over their defense. When Kerr-McGee refused this request, the wholesaler and retailer filed cross-actions for indemnification against Kerr-McGee for any amounts the wholesaler and retailer were required to pay the plaintiff as a result of a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. After the verdict was returned motions to assess costs and attorneys' fees against the plaintiff were filed pursuant to 12 O.S. 1981 ยง 940 . The trial court denied the cross-petitions for indemnification and the motions for assessment of legal fees. The motions to tax costs against the plaintiff were granted. The wholesaler and retailer then perfected this appeal on the denial of the cross-petitions for indemnification.
I.
INDEMNIFICATION LAW IN OKLAHOMA
Despite the favorable verdict and lack of a written indemnification agreement, the wholesaler and retailer now contend that Kerr-McGee should be required to indemnify them for their defense costs and attorney fees under (1) the theory of an implied indemnification contract or, in the alternative, (2) the theory that only vicarious liability could attach to them as a result of an unfavorable jury verdict in this products liability suit and this would require indemnification of all costs and judgments; the lack of such unfavorable determination should not now bar their recovery of legal costs. Thus, the question presented to us is whether a manufacturer should be required to indemnify its retailer and/or wholesaler for attorney fees and costs when the jury verdict specifically found no product defect or negligence on the part of either the manufacturer, t
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Oklahoma Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|