Opinion
No. 134568.
October 24, 2007.
Court of Appeals No. 272963.
Summary Dispositions October 24, 2007:
Pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals that the plaintiff failed to prove it was free from active negligence and that, for this reason, it may not seek indemnification from the defendant. Courts primarily look to the plaintiffs complaint in the underlying lawsuit to determine whether a prospective indemnitee was actively negligent. Hill v Sullivan Equipment Co, 86 Mich App 693, 696-697 (1978). The Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the underlying complaint alleged both active and passive negligence against the defendant. At all stages of the underlying litigation, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant was vicariously liable for the acts of its agent, not its own active negligence. We remand this case to the Court of Appeals to consider the trial court's other grounds for denying summary disposition to the plaintiff and granting summary disposition to the defendant. We do not retain jurisdiction.