In a contaminated land action arising from a real estate purchase, certain real estate defendants settled with the plaintiffs under a Pierringer Agreement and sought to be removed from the proceeding.
The remaining vendor defendant refused to abandon a cross-claim against the listing agent and brokerage that pleaded both negligence and breach of contract under the listing agreement.
The court held that Pierringer principles applicable to contributory negligence claims did not plainly foreclose a distinct contractual indemnity claim by a non-settling defendant who was not party to the settlement agreement.
The motion to strike that cross-claim was dismissed, although a separate contributory-negligence-only cross-claim was struck on consent.
