PULTE HOME CORPORATION v. Parex, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that the Supreme Court of Virginia has held both that indemnity that must grow out of a contractual relationship and that equitable indemnification is available in Virginia, but refusing to reconcile the two confusing holdings
• noting that direct damages “flow directly and immediately” from the act of the breaching party, whereas consequential damages are present where “a detour is required to get from [defendant’s] breach ... to [plaintiffs] damages”
• noting that direct dam- ages \flow directly and immediately\ from the act of the breaching party, whereas consequential damages are present where \a detour is required to get from [defendant's] breach . . . to [plaintiff's] dam- ages\
• an unrelated case between the parties to the instant appeal which demonstrates that, under Virginia law, a claim for implied or equitable indemnification is cognizable when one party is responsible for damages caused by the negligence of another
• “[Wjhile contribution will lie if the injured party’s cause of action is not presently enforceable but was enforceable at some time in the past, contribution is unavailable if the injured party never had an enforceable cause of action against the target of the contribution claim.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).