In Satterfield v. St. Elizabeth Health Center, 159 Ohio App.3d 616, 2005 Ohio 710, 824 N.E.2d 1047, a fire occurred during a medical procedure. The injured plaintiff filed a medical malpractice suit against the health center, the anesthesiologist, the Cleveland Clinic Foundation (CCF), and its employee. The health center then sought indemnification from the defendants. Subsequently, the health center settled with the plaintiff for $ 500,000. The plaintiff also agreed that regardless of the outcome at trial, she would not execute a judgment against the health center exceeding an additional $ 500,000. One defendant, CCF, also settled with the plaintiff. The plaintiff then dismissed the remaining claims. The defendants later requested summary judgment regarding the health center's indemnification claim. The trial court granted the motion and concluded that the health center was never found vicariously liable and, thus, could not prove its right to indemnification. The health center appealed and argued that genuine issues of material fact remained regarding its indemnification claim. The health center asserted that: (1) the plaintiff's claim was based upon agency by estoppels; (2) it did not commit any independent acts of negligence; (3) because its negligence was secondary to the defendant's, a judicial determination of liability was not necessary for it to seek indemnification. The appellate court concluded that the health center could not establish its right to indemnification. The court determined that under implied indemnity principles, one of the co-defendants must be at fault in causing the plaintiff's injuries. Moreover, the court noted that the health center's cross-claim for indemnity asserted: "The health center says that if it should be found liable by virtue of principles of vicarious liability or primary or secondary negligence, that it is entitled to indemnity from such defendants who may be primarily liable to the plaintiffs." Id. at P13. The court stated that because the health center settled, "liability was never established." Id. at P14. The court thus concluded that the health center could not meet the term for indemnification in its cross-claim. The court additionally found that the health center failed to present evidence that the defendants were primarily liable and it was only secondarily liable.