Robb, J.
Case Summary and Issue
Ardis and Sandra Tucker (the “Tuckers”) filed a complaint alleging breach of contract against Tom Raper, Inc. and Clarke Power Services, Inc. for failure to repair their damaged recreational vehicle (“RV”). The Tuckers’ complaint alleged they were third-party beneficiaries of two separate contracts: one between their RV’s insurer, American Family Insurance, and Raper; and one between American Family or Raper and Clarke. Thereafter, Raper and Clarke filed motions to dismiss alleging, among other things, that because the Tuckers asserted they were third-party beneficiaries, their status as such must be founded on a written contract; and because they failed to attach a written contract to their complaint as required by Indiana Rule of Trial Procedure 9.2(A), dismissal of their complaint was required. The trial court agreed and dismissed the Tuckers’ complaint following their failure to remedy the alleged defect. The Tuckers now appeal, raising three issues for our review, one of which we find dispositive: whether the trial court erred in dismissing their complaint for failing to comply with Indiana Rule of Trial Procedure 9.2(A). Concluding the trial court erred in dismissing the Tuckers’ complaint, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
….
Both Raper and Clarke assert “a third-party beneficiary claim requires a written contract with a specific provision conferring third-party beneficiary rights to the [Tuckers].”… Raper and Clarke assert this language mandates a written contract to bestow rights upon a third party. We disagree.
The language from Cain cited by Raper and Clarke directs a court, where there is a written contract, to focus on the parties’ intent and whether the contract manifests a clear intent to impose an obligation on a contracting party for the benefit of a third party. And when a court is called upon to interpret or construe a written contract to determine the parties’ intent (as was our supreme court’s task in Cain), the intent to benefit a third party must be clear from the language of that contract. But nothing from Cain or this language, or other authorities cited by Raper or Clarke, forecloses the possibility that two or more parties may orally contract with the intent to benefit a third party. It is a well-established legal principle a contract may be oral as well as written. DiMaggio v. Rosario, 52 N.E.3d 896, 905 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied.
….
The Tuckers’ complaint alleged they were third-party beneficiaries of two separate contracts but did not specifically plead the existence of a written contract and their allegations can reasonably be construed as based on oral contracts. Further, as noted above, third-party beneficiary status is not solely dependent upon a written contract. Therefore, we conclude the trial court erred in dismissing the Tuckers’ complaint for failure to comply with Indiana Rule of Trial Procedure 9.2(A). [Footnote omitted.]
Conclusion
We conclude the trial court erred in dismissing the Tuckers’ complaint for failure to comply with Indiana Rule of Trial Procedure 9.2(A). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
Vaidik, C.J., and Bailey, J., concur.