Knightbrook v. Payless Car rental/pcr Venture

Summary

The Arizona Supreme Court held that Arizona equitable indemnity law does not incorporate section 78 of the First Restatement of Restitution. Arizona equitable indemnity generally requires payment of an actual obligation for which both parties were liable and that, between them, the defendant should have discharged; section 78 improperly expands that doctrine to supposed obligations based on a justifiable belief of liability. The court declined to answer the certified question concerning coextensive liability because it became moot.