A crossclaim between co-parties is a claim you file against someone on your own side of a lawsuit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13(g). If you and another party are both defendants (or both plaintiffs) and you believe that co-party owes you something tied to the dispute, Rule 13(g) lets you resolve it inside the existing case rather than starting a separate lawsuit. Filing one is optional, but the procedural rules around answering, jurisdiction, and related counterclaims are stricter than most litigants expect.1Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 13
What Qualifies as a Crossclaim
Rule 13(g) permits a claim against a co-party — someone on the same side of the litigation — when the claim arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the original action or a counterclaim already in the case, or when it relates to property that is the subject of the original action.1Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 13
The property option matters most when multiple parties claim rights to the same asset. If three lienholders are sued in a foreclosure action, one can crossclaim against another to establish priority over the collateral, even if the underlying facts differ somewhat, because the property itself ties the claims together.
Rule 13(g) only reaches parties already in the lawsuit. You cannot use a crossclaim to pull in an outside person or company. If the party you need to sue is not yet in the case, you need impleader under Rule 14 or joinder under Rule 13(h).
The Transaction or Occurrence Test
Courts evaluate the connection by looking for a logical relationship between the crossclaim and the main case. The practical questions are whether the same witnesses would testify about both, whether the legal issues overlap, and whether separate resolution would risk inconsistent results. The standard is flexible, not mechanical. A crossclaim doesn’t need identical facts, but proving it can’t require a wholly different set of evidence.
Crossclaims routinely satisfy the test in multi-vehicle accidents where defendants blame each other, in construction defect suits where contractors and subcontractors dispute responsibility, and in product liability cases where manufacturers and distributors point at one another. They routinely fail when a defendant tries to collect an unrelated business debt from a co-defendant who happens to be in the same suit.
How a Crossclaim Differs From a Counterclaim or Impleader
Three tools look similar and work differently. Mixing them up can get a filing dismissed or forfeit a claim you were required to bring.
A counterclaim under Rule 13(a) or 13(b) is a claim against an opposing party — the person who sued you. Compulsory counterclaims arise from the same transaction as the opposing party’s claim and are lost if not asserted. Permissive counterclaims cover unrelated disputes and can be filed separately without penalty.1Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 13 Counterclaims run across the “v.” in the caption. Crossclaims run sideways, between parties on the same side.
Impleader under Rule 14 lets a defending party bring in someone not yet in the case who may owe indemnity or contribution. Once that third party is in the lawsuit, they become a co-party for crossclaim purposes.2Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 14
Indemnity and Contribution
The most common crossclaims tell the court that if the crossclaimant is liable to the plaintiff, a co-party should be the one paying. Rule 13(g) expressly allows a crossclaim asserting that a co-party “is or may be liable to the crossclaimant for all or part of a claim asserted in the action.”1Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 13
Contribution spreads liability. If you and a co-defendant are both at fault and you pay the entire judgment, contribution lets you recover the co-defendant’s share. Indemnity shifts the entire loss and usually arises from a contract, such as an indemnification clause in a subcontractor agreement, or from a legal relationship in which one party’s liability is purely derivative of another’s.
These crossclaims are derivative. Their outcome depends on whether the plaintiff wins the main case and for how much. A court can enter a conditional judgment: if defendant A is found liable for $500,000, defendant B owes defendant A $300,000. That avoids a second trial to sort out who ultimately pays.
Watch for Bar Orders in Settlements
Settlement introduces a wrinkle that catches many litigants off guard. When one defendant settles with the plaintiff, the agreement often includes a court-approved bar order that extinguishes the remaining defendants’ crossclaims for contribution or indemnity against the settling defendant. The logic is straightforward: defendants won’t settle if doing so just redirects liability back through a co-defendant’s crossclaim. The consequence for non-settling defendants is real. They lose the ability to recover from the settling party and may bear a disproportionate share of the final judgment. If a co-party in a multi-defendant case is negotiating a settlement, watch for a bar order in the proposed terms.
Filing Is Optional, but Answering Isn’t
Crossclaims are permissive under the federal rules. You can raise the claim inside the current suit or save it for a later action, and choosing not to file does not waive your right to sue later. Claim preclusion generally does not bar a later suit on an unfiled crossclaim, because the doctrine applies to claims between adverse parties, and co-parties on the same side of the original case are not treated as adverse to each other for that purpose.1Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 13
The trap is on the response side. Once a co-party files a crossclaim against you, the two of you are now opposing parties with respect to that crossclaim. Rule 13(a)’s compulsory counterclaim rule kicks in. Any claim you have against the crossclaimant arising from the same transaction or occurrence must be raised in your answer to the crossclaim, or you risk losing it. Filing a crossclaim is voluntary; responding to one with your related claims is not.
Jurisdiction in Federal Court
A crossclaim in federal court doesn’t need its own independent basis for federal jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, district courts have supplemental jurisdiction over claims “so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.” Because crossclaims must arise from the same transaction or occurrence as the main case, they almost always qualify.3Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 USC 1367 – Supplemental Jurisdiction
Courts retain discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction — for example, if the crossclaim raises a novel state law question, substantially predominates over the federal claims, or the claims providing original jurisdiction have been dismissed.3Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 USC 1367 – Supplemental Jurisdiction If the main case settles or is dismissed, Rule 13(i) allows the court to enter judgment on a crossclaim so long as it still has jurisdiction, though in practice many judges decline to keep a standalone crossclaim alive after the anchor claims are gone.1Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 13
Adding New Parties Through a Crossclaim
Rule 13(h) allows a crossclaimant to bring in additional parties when necessary or appropriate under the joinder rules. Rule 19 governs required joinder, applying when the court cannot grant complete relief without the absent person or when their absence would leave existing parties facing inconsistent obligations.4Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 19 – Required Joinder of Parties Rule 20 governs permissive joinder, applying when the claims share a common question and arise from the same transaction or series of transactions.5Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 20 – Permissive Joinder of Parties
Any newly added party must be properly served with a summons and the crossclaim, just like a defendant served with an original complaint, and gets the same response rights and deadlines.
Filing, Service, and Response Deadlines
A crossclaim is typically included in the same pleading as the answer to the original complaint rather than filed as a separate document. It must state the supporting facts and include a demand for specific relief, whether that’s a dollar amount, a declaration of rights, or both. Vague assertions that a co-party “should be responsible,” without factual support, won’t survive a motion to dismiss.
The co-party served with a crossclaim has 21 days to file an answer. The answer follows the same format as an answer to a complaint: admissions, denials, affirmative defenses, and any compulsory counterclaims. Filing a Rule 12 motion instead of an answer pauses the answer deadline. If the court denies the motion, the co-party has 14 days from the denial to serve a responsive pleading. If the court grants a motion for a more definite statement, the answer is due 14 days after the crossclaimant serves the clarified pleading.6Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12 – Defenses and Objections
Default for Failure to Respond
If the co-party ignores the crossclaim, the crossclaimant can seek a default judgment. The process starts with asking the clerk to enter a default, supported by an affidavit showing the co-party failed to respond. If the crossclaim seeks a sum certain, the clerk can enter judgment. Otherwise, the crossclaimant must ask the judge, who may hold a hearing to determine damages. A defaulting party who has appeared in the case, which co-parties almost always have, must receive at least seven days’ written notice before the default judgment hearing.7Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 55 – Default and Default Judgment
State Court Variations
Most states model their crossclaim rules on the federal framework, but variations exist. A handful of states treat certain crossclaims as compulsory rather than permissive, meaning failure to file in the current action results in waiver. State-specific deadlines, filing fees, and service requirements also differ from the federal rules. If your case is in state court, check the local rules of civil procedure before assuming the federal standards apply. The core concept — one co-party asserting a related claim against another co-party — is universal. The procedural details are not.