Third-Party claims for common-law contribution and indemnification are not cognizable where the underlying claim seeks to hold the defendant liable for its own conduct and the claim is for economic loss seeking only the contractual benefit of the bargain.

In March 2014, the plaintiff retained the defendant Branded Concept Development, Inc. as project manager to oversee the renovation of premises where it planned to relocate its business. In November 2015, the plaintiff retained a general contractor in connection with the project. After the plaintiff brought claims against it, Branded initiated a third-party complaint against the general contractor and the design professionals involved in the project, asserting claims for contribution and indemnification. In two separate decisions arising out of this same litigation and set of facts, the Second Department dismissed Branded’s claims for contribution since the underlying claims by the plaintiff against it were for economic loss, stating there is no claim for contribution where, tort language notwithstanding, the underlying claim seeks only the contractual benefit of the bargain. Common law indemnity also did not apply since the plaintiff sought to hold Branded liable for Branded’s own conduct and not vicariously liable for anything that the third-party defendants did or did not do.

^{Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, April 2022 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2022 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}