Legal Difference between Crossclaim and Counterclaim

Legal Difference between Crossclaim and Counterclaim

A counterclaim is a cause of action brought by a defendant in a dispute. It is usually filed as part of the response and contains allegations that the defendant could have made if the plaintiff had not filed first. The counterclaim contains facts that will allow the defendant to obtain compensation if these facts prove to be true. The counterclaim may relate to the same event or situation alleged by the claimant, or it may arise from a completely different event. Counterclaims are useful because they offer a defendant the opportunity to play the attack rather than the defense. Counterclaims relating to the same facts alleged by the plaintiff may be brought even if the applicable limitation period(s) has expired (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem Code Ann. § 16.069). Neither a counterclaim nor a cross-claim is a substitute for responding to a claim.

When you are served with a claim, you will generally be required to file a response to the claim, whether you intend to file a counterclaim or a counterclaim. The response is the defendant`s response to the plaintiff`s initial claim, while the counterclaim and counterclaim are the defendant`s allegations and additional claims against the plaintiff or co-defendant. Rule 13(i) empowers the court to order separate proceedings (Rule 42) and to decide separately on a counterclaim or counterclaim (Rule 54(b)). Rule 13(i), like previous practice in Massachusetts, Bordonaro v. Vandenkerckhaven, 322 Mass. 278, 281, 76 N.E.2d 755, 757 (1948), allows the court to decide a counterclaim or a cross-claim, even if the plaintiff`s claim has been dismissed. Permissive counterclaims involve matters unrelated to the claimant`s claims. The application of the mandatory counterclaim rule to car accidents, in which the defendant is usually represented by a lawyer from the insurance company, raises several difficulties.

These difficulties are described in the following excerpt from 1 Field, McKusick & Wroth, Maine Civil Practice, pp. 263-264 (1970): “Under the terms of its policy, the insurer controls the defense of such claims. The insurer`s lawyer felt duly obligated to inform the insured of the mandatory counterclaim rule, so the insured would likely ask the insured to deal with the counterclaim. If the lawyer granted the request, it provoked the dissatisfaction of the “plaintiff`s bar” that a member of the “defendant bar association” anticipated legal transactions that he would not have had under previous practice in which independent action was required. This resentment was particularly severe for the lawyer, who considered him a regular client because of the insured`s previous representation in other cases. If the same lawyer were appointed to protect both the insurance company`s interests in defending a claim and the insured`s interests in asserting a claim, conflict of interest issues would naturally arise. If, on the other hand, the insurer`s lawyer told the insured that he had to hire his own lawyer to present the counterclaim, it was difficult for the insured to understand why two lawyers were needed to do the work of one. The layman`s reaction was likely detrimental to both the insurer`s lawyer and the legal profession in general. Massachusetts Rule 13(a) does not restrict the application of the mandatory counterclaim exemption in motor vehicle accidents for two reasons: (d) Counterclaim against the United States.

These rules do not extend the right to bring a counterclaim – or loan – against the United States or any U.S. official or agency. An action which has expired or which has been acquired by the litigant after service of his pleadings may, with the leave of the Court, bring a counterclaim by means of supplementary pleadings. Nothing in these rules shall be construed as exceeding the limits currently established by law the right to assert counterclaims or loans against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or any political subdivision thereof, or any of its officers and agencies. The meaning of previous Rule 13(b) can be better expressed by deleting “not arising from the transaction or event that is the subject of the opposing party`s claim”. According to the intended meaning and established practice, a party may invoke as an admissible counterclaim a claim arising out of the same transaction or event as the claim of an adverse party, although one of the exceptions in Rule 13(a) means that the claim is not a mandatory counterclaim. The characterization of a counterclaim as mandatory or permissive, in turn, depends on a definition of “transaction or event”. The term “transaction” has been defined in this context as follows: “In a transaction, both means are based on the same injury”.

Potter v. A. W. Perry, Inc., 286 Mass. 602, 608, 190 N.E. 822, 824-825 (1934). As the Court suggested, the relevant rule “should, in a sense, be interpreted as permitting the settlement of controversies so closely related that they are appropriate in a proceeding to avoid repetition of testimony, avoid unnecessary costs to parties and the public, and expedite the resolution of claims.” In interpreting former Federal Equity Rule 30, the U.S. Supreme Court expressed a similar view: “Transaction” is a word with a flexible meaning. It can include a series of many events that depend not so much on the immediacy of their connection, but on their logical relationship. Moore v.

New York Cotton Exchange, 270 U.S. 593, 610, 46 S.Ct. 367, 371, 70 L.Ed. 750 (1926). The term “transaction or event” should have approximately the same meaning as in Rule 13(a).

Share this post