McLaughlin v. Nahata

A woman received a $17m verdict after two physicians catastrophically injured her. The physicians caused the injuries in the scope of their employment. They were employed by two agencies: the hospital systems where the injury occurred or a dialysis company. The verdict was rendered against the hospital, which sought indemnity and contribution from the dialysis company. Both parties moved for summary judgment, and the trial court denied the motions. An interlocutory appeal ensued. The Pennsylvania Superior Court gave a detailed analysis of the differences between indemnity and contribution. The Court held that summary judgment was not appropriate for the contribution or indemnity claims because more evidence was needed to resolve the matter.

MCLAUGHLIN