District Judge Tosses Contribution/Indemnity Claim Where Not Supported With Specific Facts

In a subrogation action brought by an insurer following a boiler explosion in a medical facility, Defendant A cross-claimed against Defendant B alleging contribution or indemnity.  The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia granted Defendant B‘s motion to dismiss the cross-claim based on Rule 12(b)(6) where the cross-claim merely stated that 1) Defendant B was named in the insurer’s complaint as contributing to the injuries of the insured; 2) Defendant A was not negligent; and 3) in the event any of the defendants are found liable, Defendant A “is entitled to express or implied contribution or indemnity.”  The court, in describing the insufficiency of these factual allegations, explained, “These are precisely the types of legal conclusions that are not entitled to the assumption of truth in assessing the sufficiency of a claim under Twombly and Iqbal.”

Defendant A also argued that because the indemnity and contribution claims are derivative, they effectively incorporated by reference the allegations of the insurer’s complaint.  The court rejected this argument, first explaining that Defendant A failed to incorporate them by reference, and then concluding that even if Defendant A had done so, the allegations would still be insufficient to plead the requisite facts relevant to the elements of Defendant A‘s indemnity or contribution claim.