Implied Indemnification as a Cause of Action in Connecticut

Implied indemnification is a legal doctrine that allows one party, who has been held liable for damages, to seek reimbursement from another party whose negligence was the primary cause of the harm. In Connecticut, implied indemnification is recognized in tort cases where a party (typically a defendant) seeks to shift liability to a more culpable tortfeasor.

The Connecticut Supreme Court in Kyrtatas v. Stop & Shop, Inc. established four essential elements that a party must prove to recover under implied indemnification:

1. The Other Tortfeasor was Negligent
   The party seeking indemnification (the indemnitee) must first prove that another party (the indemnitor) was negligent. This means showing that the indemnitor breached a duty of care, leading to harm.
2. The Indemnitor’s Negligence was the Direct and Immediate Cause of the Accident and Injuries
   The negligence of the indemnitor must be the primary cause of the incident, not the actions of the indemnitee. The court requires that the indemnitee’s liability is secondary or vicarious, while the indemnitor’s liability is primary.
3. The Indemnitor was in Control of the Situation to the Exclusion of the Plaintiff
   To be entitled to indemnification, the indemnitee must show that the indemnitor had exclusive control over the circumstances that led to the injury. This means that the indemnitee was not responsible for making decisions that contributed to the harm.
4. The Indemnitee Did Not Know of the Negligence, Had No Reason to Anticipate It, and Could Reasonably Rely on the Indemnitor Not to Be Negligent
   Finally, the indemnitee must prove that they were unaware of the indemnitor’s negligence, had no reason to foresee it, and reasonably relied on the indemnitor to act without negligence. If the indemnitee had prior knowledge of the risk or contributed to it, they cannot claim indemnification.

Implied indemnification is often used in cases involving employer-employee relationships, contractor-subcontractor disputes, and situations where a property owner is held liable for a third party’s negligence. Unlike express indemnification, which is based on a contract, implied indemnification arises from the circumstances of the case and the relative fault of the parties involved.

Find the Law

“A plaintiff in an action for indemnification not based on the statute or express contract, who had been a codefendant in a prior action with a joint tortfeasor, can recover indemnity from that codefendant only by establishing four separate elements: (1) that the other tortfeasor was negligent; (2) that his negligence, rather than the plaintiff’s, was the direct, immediate cause of the accident and injuries; (3) that he was in control of the situation to the exclusion of the plaintiff; and (4) that the plaintiff did not know of such negligence, had no reason to anticipate it, and could reasonably rely on the other tortfeasor not to be negligent. Id., 416.”

Kyrtatas v. Stop Shop, Inc., 205 Conn. 694, 698 (Conn. 1988)