motion, stating in its written order that if NACO was found liable to BNSF, NACO could not indemnify TTX but was “not precluded from seeking contribution from TTX for [TTX’s] proportional share of liability,” referring to the Illinois practice of contribution among tortfeasors. TTX contends that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment because implied indemnity is no longer recognized in tort cases in Illinois. While NACO correctly responds that implied indemnity is still recognized in Illinois in certain circumstances, NACO concedes that a party that is found negligent cannot indemnify a second party. Indeed, that is the law in both Arizona and Illinois. See INA Insurance Co. of North America v. Valley Forge Insurance Co., 150 Ariz. 248, 255, 722 P.2d 975, 982 (App. 1986) (<HOLDING>); Wright v. City of Danville, 174 Ill. 2d 391,
holding that a party that settled but failed to immediately notify a third party of indemnity claims did not waive indemnity claims recognizing the right under federal maritime law to contribution or indemnity from another tortfeasor holding that an indemnity provision need not be valid and enforceable to trigger obligations under the contract so long as the parties agreed to indemnity holding that an indemnitee must be proven to be free of negligence in order to receive indemnity either under a general indemnity agreement or under implied indemnity holding that reinsurance is a mere contract of indemnity