Facts
The case concerns a third-party notice claim filed by A. AG (appellant) against B. AG, C. AG and D. AG (third-party defendants). A. AG had previously filed a claim against E. AG, F.F., G.F., I.H. and H.H. (plaintiffs) due to defects in an acquired multi-family house and parking garage. In this main proceedings, the plaintiffs made additional claims due to defects in the roof construction.
A. AG then filed three requests for admission of third-party notice claims against B. AG, C. AG and D. AG, who were involved in the work on the roof construction. The claims in these requests were that the third-party defendants be ordered to pay the amount awarded to the main plaintiffs in the proceedings against the main defendant (A. AG).
The Commercial Court of the Canton of Bern dismissed the requests, as the claims were not quantified and the dependence on the outcome of the main proceedings was insufficiently justified.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Commercial Court. It stated that in a third-party notice claim, the claims must generally be quantified, as this fulfills the purpose of quantification - determining the subject-matter jurisdiction, the type of proceedings and safeguarding the right to be heard.
An exception to the obligation to quantify could possibly apply in the case of a recourse claim, if the amount to be claimed depends on the outcome of the main proceedings. However, in the present case, this is not a recourse claim, but an…