Pitcavage v. Mastercraft Boat Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that third-party defendant’s purported counterclaim against the original plaintiffs for damages allegedly caused to his boat was “not . . . a counterclaim” but rather “a new claim against plaintiffs” authorized by Rule 14(a), but denying motion to strike the claim
• “[Third-party defendant’s] claim against plaintiffs is not, however, a counterclaim. Plaintiffs have (D) “is permissive”
• “In Pennsylvania, indemnification is limited to those situations in which defendants’ liability is secondary or when an indemnification contract exists.” (citing Builders Supply Co. v. McCabe, 77 A.2d 368 (Pa. 1951))
• striking “crossclaim” filed by third-party defendant 8(c)(2

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).