MEUS asserts CC & D has not pleaded facts that show it could be liable to CC & D for any portion of the potential judgment against CC & D. In making this argument, MEUS relies heavily upon Judge Lungstrum's decision in Burlington Northern v. Cosco North America, Inc., 2003 WL 21685908 (D.Kan. July 15, 2003). CC & D responds that it is under no obligation at this time to allege or commit to any particular type of indemnity claim.
Id. at 455, 618 P.2d at 799-800.Burlington N. v. Cosco N. Am., Inc., No. 03-2065-JWL, 2003 WL 21685908, at *3 (D. Kan. July 15, 2003); Kennedy, 618 P.2d at 799-800; Nold, 202 F. Supp. 2d at 1269.Haysville, 233 Kan. at 642, 666 P.2d at 199.
Kansas law dictates that an entity is generally not vicariously liable for the tortious conduct of an independent contractor. Burlington N. v. Cosco N. Am., Inc., 2003 WL 21685908 (D. Kan. July 15, 2003) ( citing Mitzner v. State, 257 Kan. 258, 891 P.2d 435, 438 (1995)). An independent contractor "contracts to do certain work according to his own methods, without being subject to the control of his employer, except as to the results or products of his work."
Accordingly, we conclude that the business court did not err in granting A3-USA's motion to dismiss WWC's third-party claim for implied indemnity because WWC failed to adequately plead the necessary elements of that claim. See, e.g. , Burlington N. v. Cosco N. Am., Inc. , No. 03-2065-JWL, 2003 WL 21685908, at *4 (D. Kan. 2003) ("Cosco's allegations fail to state an implied contractual indemnification claim. While Cosco pleads that the alleged derailment occurred without ‘any fault, negligence, act or omission of [it],’ it does not allege that there was a relationship—such as principal and agent—that would cause it to be vicariously liable for Nippon Express's actions."