Counterclaim vs Crossclaim vs Third-Party Claim

A counterclaim is filed by a defendant against the plaintiff. A crossclaim is filed by one defendant against another defendant (or by one plaintiff against another plaintiff) on the same side of the original case. A third-party claim (impleader) is filed by a defendant against a non-party Who may be liable to the defendant for all or part of the plaintiff's claim. The three mechanisms expand the original two-party lawsuit into a multi-party proceeding, each with its own rule, deadline, and jurisdictional analysis. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 13 governs counterclaims and crossclaims; Rule 14 governs third-party claims (impleader).

This guide explains who can file each type of claim, the jurisdictional implications, the differences in procedural treatment, and the strategic considerations that drive defendants to choose one over another. For the underlying counterclaim mechanics, see our anchor what is a counterclaim explainer.

Counterclaim: Defendant Sues Plaintiff

A counterclaim under FRCP 13(a) or 13(b) is brought by the defendant against the plaintiff. It is the most common of the three claim types and is asserted in the answer rather than as a separate pleading. Compulsory counterclaims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as the plaintiff's claim and must be filed or lost; permissive counterclaims are unrelated and optional.

The counterclaim relabels the parties: the original plaintiff becomes the counterclaim defendant; the original defendant becomes the counterclaim plaintiff. Both claims proceed together through discovery, motions, and trial. The plaintiff must reply to the counterclaim within 21 days, admitting or denying each allegation and asserting any affirmative defenses.

Crossclaim: Co-Party vs Co-Party

A crossclaim under FRCP 13(g) is filed by one party against a co-party, a defendant against another defendant, or a plaintiff against another plaintiff. The most common scenario involves multiple defendants in a tort case where one wants to allocate blame to another. Crossclaims are permissive: there is no compulsory-crossclaim rule. A defendant may bring the claim in the same case or in a separate action.

To be permissible, a crossclaim must arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as the original action or any counterclaim, or relate to the property that is the subject of the original action. The transaction-or-occurrence requirement parallels the FRCP 13(a) test for compulsory counterclaims and serves the same judicial-economy purpose, but failure to bring a crossclaim does not bar later litigation.

A typical crossclaim example: in a multi-vehicle automobile accident, the plaintiff sues two defendant drivers. Driver A files a crossclaim against Driver B alleging that Driver B's negligence was the actual cause of the collision and seeking indemnification or contribution for any judgment Driver A might owe to the plaintiff. Both defendants remain in the case, and the jury allocates fault between them.

Third-Party Claim (Impleader): Defendant vs Non-Party

A third-party claim under FRCP 14 (also called impleader) is brought by a defendant against a non-party who may be liable to the defendant for all or part of the plaintiff's claim. The third-party claim is filed by way of a separate third-party complaint, and the new party is brought into the case as a third-party defendant.

The classic impleader scenario is indemnification or contribution. A retailer is sued by an injured consumer for product defects. The retailer impleads the manufacturer, alleging that any liability the retailer owes to the consumer should be borne by the manufacturer under the terms of the supply contract or under product-liability principles. The plaintiff did not name the manufacturer; the retailer's third-party complaint brings the manufacturer in.

Impleader requires that the third-party defendant be liable derivatively for the original claim. The defendant cannot use impleader to bring in a third party who is independently liable to the plaintiff for an unrelated claim. The Supreme Court reaffirmed this principle in Owen Equipment & Erection Co. V. Kroger, holding that supplemental jurisdiction does not extend to a plaintiff's direct claim against a non-diverse third-party defendant in a diversity case.

Side-by-Side Comparison

Feature	Counterclaim	Crossclaim	Third-Party Claim
Rule	FRCP 13(a) / 13(b)	FRCP 13(g)	FRCP 14
Who files	Defendant	Co-defendant or co-plaintiff	Defendant (or plaintiff vs counterclaim)
Against whom	Plaintiff	Co-party	Non-party
Compulsory or permissive	Both varieties exist	Always permissive	Always permissive
Same transaction required	Yes (compulsory only)	Yes	Yes (derivative liability)
Pleading vehicle	Within answer	Within answer	Separate third-party complaint
Adds new parties to case	No	No	Yes
Failure to file	Compulsory bars later suit	No bar	No bar (but separate suit may be required)

Jurisdictional Analysis

Each claim type raises distinct subject matter jurisdiction questions in federal court.

Compulsory counterclaims Ride on supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1367. Because they arise out of the same transaction or occurrence, they share a common nucleus of operative fact with the original claim and qualify for supplemental jurisdiction in nearly every case.

Permissive counterclaims Require independent jurisdiction. Most circuits hold that permissive counterclaims do not satisfy section 1367 because they lack the common nucleus of operative fact. The defendant must demonstrate diversity, federal question, or another independent basis.

Crossclaims typically qualify for supplemental jurisdiction because the transaction-or-occurrence requirement satisfies section 1367's common-nucleus standard.

Third-party claims typically qualify for supplemental jurisdiction over the third-party defendant. However, plaintiff's direct claims against a third-party defendant added under impleader do not Qualify for supplemental jurisdiction in diversity cases under Owen Equipment, codified in 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(b).

Strategic Choices

Defendants often have a choice between filing a counterclaim, a crossclaim, or a third-party claim, particularly when the dispute involves multiple parties with overlapping responsibilities.

A defendant who has a claim against the plaintiff and Against a co-defendant may file a counterclaim and a crossclaim in the same answer. A defendant who has a claim against the plaintiff and Against a non-party may file a counterclaim and a third-party complaint. A defendant who has a derivative claim against a non-party (indemnification, contribution) but no claim against the plaintiff or co-defendants may file only a third-party complaint.

The key strategic considerations are: (1) compulsory counterclaim risk, failure to file means forfeiture; (2) jurisdictional viability, supplemental jurisdiction works for compulsory counterclaims, crossclaims, and third-party claims, but not for permissive counterclaims or for plaintiff's direct claims against impleaded parties in diversity cases; (3) discovery efficiency, bringing all claims into one case captures the cost savings of consolidated discovery; (4) settlement use, a credible counterclaim or third-party claim shifts negotiating dynamics in the defendant's favor.

If you need a counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party complaint drafted, our attorney-drafted procedural pleadings start at $899 with seven-day delivery. Order an attorney-drafted counterclaim Or browse our free court-filing templates.

Related Civil Procedure Guides

• what a counterclaim is and how it works
• annotated counterclaim examples
• free counterclaim template
• how to answer a counterclaim
• third-party complaint procedure

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between a crossclaim and a counterclaim?

The key difference is who is being sued. A counterclaim is brought by a defendant against the plaintiff (the opposite party). A crossclaim is a claim by one party against a co-party on the same side of the case, for example, a defendant against another defendant, or a plaintiff against another plaintiff. Both are governed by FRCP 13, but counterclaims appear in subsections (a) and (b) (compulsory and permissive), while crossclaims appear in subsection (g) and are always permissive. A crossclaim must arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as the original action.

What is an example of a crossclaim?

The classic example involves multiple defendants in a negligence case. In a multi-vehicle automobile accident, the injured plaintiff sues two defendant drivers, alleging both contributed to the collision. Driver A files a crossclaim against Driver B alleging that Driver B's negligence was the actual cause of the accident and seeking indemnification or contribution for any judgment Driver A might owe to the plaintiff. The crossclaim is permissive but fits the same-transaction-or-occurrence test under FRCP 13(g) and proceeds together with the plaintiff's original claims.

What is the difference between a counterclaim and a claim?

A claim, in this context, refers to the original cause of action filed by the plaintiff in the complaint. A counterclaim is the defendant's responsive claim against the plaintiff, asserted within the answer. Both are claims for relief in the legal sense; the difference is procedural posture. The plaintiff's claim sets the case in motion; the counterclaim is the defendant's contribution to the same case. Both must satisfy the same pleading standards under FRCP 8, must state plausible legal theories, and may be challenged through Rule 12 motions.

What are the two types of counterclaims?

Compulsory and permissive. A compulsory counterclaim under FRCP 13(a) arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the plaintiff's claim and must be raised in the same case. If the defendant fails to assert it, the claim is forfeited and cannot be brought in a later suit. A permissive counterclaim under FRCP 13(b) is unrelated to the plaintiff's claim and may be raised in the same case or in a separate suit at the defendant's option. The 'logical relationship' test is the most common standard for distinguishing compulsory from permissive counterclaims.