Dakota, MN & Eastern R. R. v. R. J. Corman R. R. Construction, No. 12-2043 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseA railroad employee sued his employer, DM&E, after he was injured while working as the employee-in-charge of a construction site. DM&E then brought a third-party complaint against Corman, contending that Corman was required to indemnify and defend it against the employee's Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. 51-60, claim pursuant to a contract between the parties. Nothing in the Contract Work Agreement (CWA) indicated that it extended to claims which were unrelated to Corman's common-law negligence. The indemnity clause in the CWA did not mention the FELA. Therefore, the court held that DM&E had not shown any issues of material fact existed and therefore no negligence could be attributed to Corman. The court also held that the indemnification provision in the CWA did not trigger the insured contract exception to the general exclusion provision contained in the Lexington Insurance policy, and, as a result, no obligation existed based on the terms of the policy.
Court Description: Civil case - Federal Employers' Liability Act. In suit alleging Corman was obligated to indemnify and defendant the railroad under the parties' Contractor Work Agreement, the district court did not err in finding for Corman as nothing in the parties' agreement showed that it extended to claims which were unrelated to Corman's common-law negligence and the record, as a matter of law, showed that no negligence could be attributed to Corman; the indemnification provision in the agreement did not trigger the insured contract exception in a separate insurance policy.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.