California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Smith v. Parks Manor, 197 Cal.App.3d 872, 243 Cal.Rptr. 256 (Cal. App. 1987):
Where the claim is one for indemnification or contribution, it accrues when the indemnitee or party seeking contribution suffers a loss through payment of a judgment debt (or settlement) or through payment of more than his fair share of damages. (People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v. Superior Court (1980) 26 Cal.3d 744, 757, 163 Cal.Rptr. 585, 608 P.2d 673.) In analyzing the issue of timely presentation of a claim for indemnity, [197 Cal.App.3d 880] the court notes: "Courts in other jurisdictions which have addressed similar contentions have uniformly concluded that when a tort defendant seeks indemnity from a governmental entity pursuant to a third party procedure, and thereby institutes his action before the indemnity claim has actually accrued, the defendant should not be required to file a claim. [Citations.]" ( Id., at p. 763, 163 Cal.Rptr. 585, 608 P.2d 673, emphasis omitted.) Since the institution of the indemnity claim apprises the governmental entity of all information necessary to effectuate the purpose of the claims statutes even before the claim has matured, application of the claim filing requirement in this context largely would be meaningless or superfluous. (Ibid.) It certainly would be redundant. Accordingly, the court concludes, "when an equitable indemnity action is pursued prior to the accrual of the cause of action through a third party cross-complaint, no prior claim need be filed." (Ibid., fn. omitted.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.