Doster Construction Company, Inc. v. Marathon Electrical Contractors, Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 09/25/2009 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter o f Decisions, A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 2 2 9 ¬ 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA SPECIAL TERM, 2009 1061471 Doster Construction Company, I n c . v. Marathon E l e c t r i c a l Contractors, Inc. Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court, (CV-04-876) PER CURIAM. Doster from Bessemer D i v i s i o n Construction the denial Company, by t h e J e f f e r s o n I n c . ("Doster"), Circuit Court of appeals Doster's m o t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r t h e summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f M a r a t h o n E l e c t r i c a l C o n t r a c t o r s , I n c . ("Marathon"), concerning Doster's 1061471 third-party to procure complaint insurance. a l l e g i n g breach We o f c o n t r a c t and failure affirm i n part, reverse i n part, and remand. I. Doster was Facts the automobile-parts "Oxford Procedural general in w i t h Marathon, for an record as into a t o w h i c h M a r a t h o n was to referred Bessemer. pursuant action: clause a n d M a r a t h o n c o n t a i n e d two an indemnity concerning the liability-insurance as clause a to job in It p r o v i d e e l e c t r i c a l work at the j o b s i t e . Doster History c o n t r a c t o r at manufacturer Automotive" subcontract and The site the entered c o n t r a c t between p r o v i s i o n s p e r t i n e n t to ("the indemnity clause") p r o v i s i o n of liability insurance indemnity clause clause") . The and a ("the provides follows: "Indemnity. $100.00 of t h e S u b c o n t r a c t P r i c e i s s p e c i f i c c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r [ M a r a t h o n ' s ] agreement to d e f e n d and i n d e m n i f y [ D o s t e r ] and o t h e r s as p r o v i d e d in t h i s Paragraph. To t h e f u l l e s t e x t e n t p e r m i t t e d by law, [Marathon] shall defend and indemnify [ D o s t e r ] , Owner, and A r c h i t e c t , and t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e d i r e c t o r s , o f f i c e r s , agents, employees, successors, insurers, sureties, affiliates, and assigns (collectively, the 'Indemnitees') against, and assume any o b l i g a t i o n s o f t h e I n d e m n i t e e s f o r , a l l liabilities, claims, suits, actions, proceedings, damages, losses, judgments, and expenses ( c o l l e c t i v e l y , 'Indemnified Losses') i n c l u d i n g , but n o t l i m i t e d t o a t t o r n e y s ' f e e s , t h a t a r i s e i n any 2 this 1061471 way, d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y , out of a f a i l u r e by [Marathon] (including the [Marathon] Design P r o f e s s i o n a l s ) t o : ( a ) c a r r y o u t t h e Work i n a s a f e manner; ( b ) s t r i c t l y comply w i t h any a p p l i c a b l e laws, regulations, building codes, rules, or industry standards; ( c ) exercise reasonable care i n the p e r f o r m a n c e o f t h e Work o r t o e x e c u t e t h e Work in a non-negligent manner; or ( d ) s t r i c t l y comply with the requirements of this Subcontract. [ M a r a t h o n ' s ] o b l i g a t i o n t o d e f e n d and i n d e m n i f y t h e Indemnitees shall n o t be d i m i n i s h e d o r excused merely because the negligence or other breach of a legal duty on t h e p a r t o f any Indemnitee also contributed to the Indemnified Loss. Provided, h o w e v e r , t h a t i f i n any p r o c e e d i n g i n i t i a t e d by a third p a r t y , t h e r e i s an a p p o r t i o n m e n t of the relative c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o t h e I n d e m n i f i e d Loss by the I n d e m n i t e e s on t h e o n e h a n d , a n d [ M a r a t h o n ] on the o t h e r , t h e n [ M a r a t h o n ] s h a l l o n l y be r e q u i r e d t o defend and i n d e m n i f y t h e Indemnitees t o t h e e x t e n t of [Marathon's] proportionate contribution. [ M a r a t h o n ' s ] o b l i g a t i o n s u n d e r t h i s P a r a g r a p h do n o t l i m i t any o t h e r r i g h t or o b l i g a t i o n of indemnity t h a t e x i s t s i n f a v o r o f any I n d e m n i t e e . In the event that a claim i s made b y a n e m p l o y e e o f Subcontractor against an Indemnitee, [Marathon] s h a l l d e f e n d and i n d e m n i f y such Indemnitee t o t h e same e x t e n t as i f s u c h claim were made b y a non-employee, notwithstanding any statute or judicial decision that would otherwise limit [Marathon's] l i a b i l i t y . I f and t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t the indemnification p r o v i d e d by this Paragraph should be construed to exceed any restriction e s t a b l i s h e d by l a w , then i t i s t h e i n t e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s t h a t t h i s P a r a g r a p h b e d e e m e d t o be r e f o r m e d and m o d i f i e d s u c h t h a t i t a f f o r d s t o t h e I n d e m n i t e e s t h e maximum i n d e m n i f i c a t i o n a l l o w e d b y s u c h l a w , a n d any t e r m s , w o r d s , and p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s Paragraph s h a l l be deemed m o d i f i e d o r d e l e t e d t o t h e e x t e n t necessary to make this Paragraph valid and enforceable." 3 1061471 The liability-insurance clause provides, in pertinent part: " L i a b i l i t y Insurance. [Marathon] s h a l l m a i n t a i n a t i t s own e x p e n s e ( a ) a l l i n s u r a n c e r e q u i r e d by applicable law; (b) a l l insurance required for s u b c o n t r a c t o r s by t h e P r i m e C o n t r a c t ; and ( c ) t h e forms of i n s u r a n c e i d e n t i f i e d below i n at l e a s t the amounts s p e c i f i e d . [Marathon] s h a l l have [Doster] d e s i g n a t e d a n d i n c l u d e d as an a d d i t i o n a l i n s u r e d on all such insurance. Coverage of [Doster] as an additional insured shall be primary, and not contributory or excess. [Marathon] waives a l l rights of recovery against [ D o s t e r ] , Owner, and A r c h i t e c t f o r any l o s s o r damage c o v e r e d by any i n s u r a n c e , i n c l u d i n g a l l r i g h t s that might otherwise a c c r u e t o any s u b r o g e e . " Doster Inc. also entered ("Steel City), Doster testing an o v e r h e a d c r a n e . d i s p u t e d by the employee of Doster that contained the a pursuant provide is with into the subcontract to weights parties, which and with Steel personnel Steel City City, was to necessary for Though the t i m i n g of i t s e x e c u t i o n 1 both p a r t i e s acknowledge that s i g n e d a one-page i n v o i c e f o r o v e r t i m e following an work paragraph: "[Doster] shall d e f e n d and indemnify [Steel C i t y ] and h o l d [ S t e e l C i t y ] h a r m l e s s f r o m any and all l o s s e s , claims, costs ... and liability for personal injury or any other casualty losses (including property damage) arising from the performance of t h i s Agreement, except i n the case of Marathon alleges that a Doster employee signed the invoice the day after the a c c i d e n t , without knowing i t c o n t a i n e d an i n d e m n i f i c a t i o n a g r e e m e n t . Doster a l l e g e s that t h e i n v o i c e was s i g n e d b e f o r e t h e a c c i d e n t . 1 4 1061471 r e c k l e s s o r w i l l f u l m i s c o n d u c t by [Steel City's] employees o r a g e n t s who at such time are acting under t h e a u t h o r i t y and c o n t r o l o f [ S t e e l City], p r o v i d e d however, d u r i n g the performance of this A g r e e m e n t , any and a l l o f [ S t e e l C i t y ' s ] equipment o p e r a t o r s , maintenance p e r s o n n e l or o t h e r employees or agents whose services are required f o r the o p e r a t i o n of the equipment used hereunder are agreed and d e e m e d t o be under the u l t i m a t e power and control of [Doster] and as such are 'loaned servants.'" Les On Unland July 18, was 2003, employed Steel by Marathon City as employees an electrician. were testing an o v e r h e a d c r a n e when i t m a l f u n c t i o n e d . U n l a n d h a d f i n i s h e d h i s work f o r t h e day troubleshoot fix to when he was the e l e c t r i c a l the problem, the overhead Unland system used crane. After scissor state lift that working on Steel the crane, employee engaged The crane c o l l i d e d w i t h the s c i s s o r Unland sustained device, to f a l l injuries and lift 25 was feet picked crane lift, the to taken to the start floor. hospital. the parties remote moving. knocking i t over to the p r o j e c t 5 remounted Both crane himself that operated the to the f l o o r . c a u s i n g the to of the crane, Unland up site In order to to raise "cab" f l o o r a remote and causing the City to the work of the crane. a scissor to lower h i m s e l f back a back Upon r e a c h i n g t h e Unland lowered to the p r o j e c t crane. called and Unland 1061471 Unland sought and r e c e i v e d w o r k e r s ' c o m p e n s a t i o n from Marathon f o r the a c c i d e n t . On Doster that Steel the and Steel City, alleging C i t y p l a c e d the crane scissor reckless, and Pursuant Doster lift" to Marathon, Insurance indemnity Marathon, and and s e t t l e d Unland's action clause defended Doster was the tendered i t s Doster. sued and over "negligent, i n Unland's of through 2004, U n l a n d c a u s i n g i t to push resulted Doster Marathon, Company, such 1, "Defendants i n motion that careless" the and and July benefits injuries. contract Unland's between claims insurer, Amerisure to Amerisure eventually c l a i m s a g a i n s t D o s t e r f o r $400,000 i n J a n u a r y 2006. Steel based on invoice City the tendered Unland's invoice constituted f o r overtime a S t e e l C i t y and D o s t e r . contract and defense indemnification the claim indemnity to work, for contending Doster that indemnification D o s t e r r e f u s e d t o d e f e n d and Steel City, and claims against i t to the between indemnify Steel City f i l e d a third-party cross-claim for Marathon, but responsibility s e t t l e m e n t of Unland's to against Doster. Doster Marathon i t s defense have viewed been completed tendered after and the c l a i m s a g a i n s t D o s t e r , and i t t h e r e f o r e 6 1061471 refused settle the tender. Unland's A t t h e same claims against American I n s u r a n c e Company $600,000 on J a n u a r y Following time, Steel i t , and City sought i t s insurer, ("Zurich"), settled Zurich the claims f o r 17, 2006. the settlement of Unland's claims against Doster, the counsel Amerisure provided to Doster withdrew counsel p r o v i d e d by D o s t e r ' s insurer, stepped i n to defend March 29, 2006, containing Marathon had defend Second, and breached indemnify Doster On judgment February by that complaint Doster clause City's had failing Marathon moved a response to the construction-safety motion, breached along consultant 7 with Jerry an to the insurance Doster. asserted i n Doster's cover Doster's r e l a t i o n s h i p with Steel C i t y . that cross-claim. for i t scontract with On against refusing to procure against and Zurich, alleged by Steel cross-claim claims also cross-claim. Marathon that 2007, contending First, on was City's a third-party Doster City's 7, which the indemnity clause as t o b o t h complaint, filed alleged f o r Steel on S t e e l two c l a i m s . liability-insurance coverage Doster Doster Marathon to a summary third-party Doster Doster d i d not submitted affidavit Gillis. In from the 1061471 affidavit, failed Gillis to carry out comply w i t h the meet the tag to out his industry standard Specifically, Unland testified lock out the the path of the entered regarding reasons a both for r e c o n s i d e r the judgment. May 31, 2007. Doster to i n short, proper to the failed to procedure overhead In claim or to lift. By was failing t h a t he was to clear Doster in favor without then trial c o u r t on M a r c h of Marathon explaining filed a i t s motion to c o u r t denied the motion from the judgment 2, of the on trial complaint Marathon. March insurer required crane court w i t h r e s p e c t to both counts of i t s t h i r d - p a r t y against work. others could control i t . claims, appeals his t o t h e c r a n e w h i l e he judgment The Unland failed arguments, the t r i a l so. opinion, manner, d i d not ensure Doster's doing safe scissor before summary of his performing source Unland After entertaining 2007, that v i a the crane a in controls crane l o c k out the c o n t r o l s , in care stated the in s t a n d a r d s , and, the e l e c t r i c a l - p o w e r disembarking of work of Gillis that, 2008, Steel Zurich, reached f o r defense and a City and Doster, s e t t l e m e n t on indemnity 8 i n the Steel amount through City's of their cross- $368,288. 1061471 Hence, t h a t against i s t h e a m o u n t D o s t e r s e e k s on i t s indemnity Marathon. II. Standard of Review "'The s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w a p p l i c a b l e t o a s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t i s t h e same a s t h e s t a n d a r d f o r g r a n t i n g t h e m o t i o n . . . . ' M c C l e n d o n v . M o u n t a i n Top Indoor F l e a M a r k e t , I n c . , 601 So. 2 d 9 5 7 , 958 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . "'A s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t i s p r o p e r when t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t and the moving p a r t y is entitled to a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w . R u l e 5 6 ( c ) ( 3 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. The b u r d e n i s on t h e m o v i n g p a r t y t o make a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g that t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t a n d t h a t i t i s e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t as a matter of law. In d e t e r m i n i n g whether the movant has c a r r i e d t h a t b u r d e n , t h e c o u r t i s t o v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e i n a l i g h t most favorable t o t h e nonmoving p a r t y and t o draw a l l r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e s i n f a v o r of that party. To d e f e a t a p r o p e r l y s u p p o r t e d summary judgment motion, the nonmoving p a r t y must p r e s e n t " s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e " c r e a t i n g a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t -- " e v i d e n c e o f s u c h w e i g h t a n d q u a l i t y that fair-minded persons i n the e x e r c i s e of i m p a r t i a l judgment can r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r the e x i s t e n c e o f t h e f a c t s o u g h t t o be p r o v e d . " Ala. Code 1975, § 12-21-12; West v. F o u n d e r s L i f e A s s u r a n c e Co. o f F l o r i d a , 54 7 So. 2 d 8 7 0 , 871 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . ' " C a p i t a l A l l i a n c e I n s . Co. v . T h o r o u g h - C l e a n , I n c . , 639 So. 2 d 1 3 4 9 , 1350 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) . Q u e s t i o n s of law a r e r e v i e w e d de n o v o . Alabama R e p u b l i c a n P a r t y v. M c G i n l e y , 893 So. 2 d 3 3 7 , 342 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) . " 9 claim 1061471 Pritchett (Ala. v. I C N Med. Alliance, I n c . , 938 So. 933, 935 2006). III. The indemnity provides that "against, and liabilities, losses, assume claims, or "failure by manner," contains will any "defend ... "strictly and out ... of, to carry comply language. indemnify" of actions, and expenses Marathon broad obligations suits, indirectly" to Analysis clause Marathon judgments, directly [Doster] that among t h e Work o r t o e x e c u t e To s i m p l i f y slightly, to indemnify Doster of any n e g l i g e n c e exception have c o n t r i b u t e d . a l l damages, i n any way, other things, any any ... in a safe industry performance t h e Work i n a n o n - n e g l i g e n t m a n n e r . " the indemnity clause r e q u i r e s Marathon f o r a n y l o s s D o s t e r may s u f f e r attributable f o r any l o s s Doster arise o u t t h e Work with It for, proceedings, standards," or to " e x e r c i s e reasonable care i n the of 2d to which to Marathon. Doster's own as a r e s u l t I t contains negligence no may 2 Ordinarily, indemnification f o r an i n d e m n i t e e ' s own n e g l i g e n c e r e q u i r e s " c l e a r and u n e q u i v o c a l language." Harsco C o r p . v . N a v i s t a r I n t ' l T r a n s p . C o r p . , 630 S o . 2 d 1 0 0 8 , 1 0 1 1 (Ala. 1 9 9 3 ) ( c i t i n g I n d u s t r i a l T i l e , I n c . v . S t e w a r t , 388 S o . 2d 1 7 1 , 176 ( A l a . 1 9 8 0 ) ) . The i n d e m n i f i c a t i o n c l a u s e a t i s s u e here i n c l u d e s the f o l l o w i n g sentence: "[Marathon's] obligation 2 10 1061471 Under the c i r c u m s t a n c e s of the indemnity required clause to enforce presented, are i t as in i t is some then, u n l e s s the way ambiguous, terms we are written. "Under general Alabama rules of contract interpretation, the intent of the contracting p a r t i e s i s d i s c e r n e d from the whole of the c o n t r a c t . W h e r e t h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e t e r m s o f t h e c o n t r a c t are used i n a s p e c i a l or t e c h n i c a l sense, they will be given their ordinary, plain, and n a t u r a l meaning. I f the c o u r t determines t h a t the terms are unambiguous ( s u s c e p t i b l e of only one reasonable meaning), then the c o u r t w i l l presume t h a t t h e p a r t i e s i n t e n d e d what t h e y s t a t e d and w i l l e n f o r c e t h e c o n t r a c t as w r i t t e n . " Homes o f L e g e n d , I n c . v . M c C o l l o u g h , 776 So. 2d 7 4 1 , 746 (Ala. 2000). "A c o n t r a c t u a l p r o v i s i o n i s a m b i g u o u s i f i t i s susceptible Inc. v. (Ala. find 2d Composite 2005). of the one Constr. meaning." Sys., M a r a t h o n does not indemnity none. 689, o f more t h a n Cf. 693-94 c l a u s e w o u l d be Extermitech, ( A l a . 2006) FabArc Inc., offer 914 any reason considered I n c . v. (finding So. Steel 2d why Supply, 344, the 357 terms a m b i g u o u s , and Glasscock, an reasonably indemnity Inc., 951 we So. provision in to defend and indemnify the Indemnitees shall not be d i m i n i s h e d or excused merely because the n e g l i g e n c e or o t h e r b r e a c h o f a l e g a l d u t y on t h e p a r t o f a n y I n d e m n i t e e a l s o c o n t r i b u t e d to the I n d e m n i f i e d Loss." No i s s u e i s p r e s e n t e d on a p p e a l a s t o t h e a d e q u a c y o f t h i s language. 11 1061471 a contract t o be a m b i g u o u s b e c a u s e s p e c i f y i n g when o n e p a r t y ' s became effective, provision The and indemnity clause Marathon's indemnity be suffered contractual by contains a third work date the other i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of that no l a n g u a g e e x c e p t i n g o b l i g a t i o n any l o s s o r l i a b i l i t y Doster electrical party's a plausible"). only undertakings, agreement w i t h the o b l i g a t i o n to indemnify "each [was] r e a s o n a b l y i t d i d not contain by virtue e.g., party at such the of that may Doster's Doster's own as S t e e l C i t y , job from site. own indemnity relating Instead, to i t c a t e g o r i c a l l y s t a t e s t h a t Marathon "assume[s] any o b l i g a t i o n s " of Doster arise Thus, for " a l l liabilities, directly or the t r i g g e r Marathon's part presented indirectly from f o r the indemnity at the Oxford undisputed Marathon's clause evidence to the t r i a l indemnity [and] l o s s e s " with Steel Doster's Steel City as claim against incurred f o r the i n j u r y 12 and on Doster court that Marathon c o n s t i t u t e s an o b l i g a t i o n o f D o s t e r . Steel City i s negligence contributed to the accident. agreement is a liability that negligence. Automotive job s i t e , e m p l o y e e U n l a n d ' s own n e g l i g e n c e Doster's claims, clearly settlement a result he City of with Unland's sustained at the 1061471 Oxford Automotive unambiguous claim reading against indemnity that Marathon. judgment claim of because the favor entering failed a also from Marathon by insurance clause, the a erred that as a plain Steel liability of of the Doster attributable Doster's Steel the trial a to summary indemnity City. to f o r the court i t s claim cross-claim that erred in Marathon made b y City. "Agreements to p r o c u r e i n s u r a n c e are g e n e r a l l y enforceable under Alabama law, and a party who b r e a c h e s s u c h an a g r e e m e n t i s l i a b l e f o r d a m a g e s r e s u l t i n g from the f a i l u r e to o b t a i n the promised insurance "A contractual obligation to indemnify is d i s t i n c t from a c o n t r a c t u a l o b l i g a t i o n to procure insurance. U n d e r an agreement to indemnify, the promisor assumes l i a b i l i t y for a l l injuries and damages upon t h e o c c u r r e n c e o f a c o n t i n g e n c y . In c o n t r a s t , an a g r e e m e n t t o o b t a i n i n s u r a n c e involves the promisor's agreement to obtain or purchase insurance coverage, regardless of whether [a] contingency occurs " 13 and City's parameters in entering concerning i t to judgment under negligence court contends summary to procure within i t concerned trial of Therefore, indemnity fell f o r amounts p a i d Doster the indirectly Thus, in site. Doster clause arose job Steel 1061471 G o o d y e a r T i r e & R u b b e r Co. 633, 639 (Ala. Doster Doster insured with additional a in fact, and the is not cross-claim included as was required job site. Marathon to The was contractually under the an Marathon provided i t to to Unland's settle clause, broad Doster. to a duty for required to to another assume; encompass City's clause [Doster] designated the policies i t s work at the Oxford Doster Doster 14 Doster. liability-insurance on procure to Steel "have additional insured" obtain claim. liability-insurance The must claim that l i k e w i s e had the an policies for Steel City's cross-claim against indemnity as Amerisure, insurance as $400,000 liability-insurance liabilities 2d as that Marathon clause that Marathon an and carrier, sufficiently that So. Doster Marathon's insurance Unland against provides 629 listing however, the named insurance paying procure insurance for of perform i t s duties argues, clause its policies certificate Doster, Unlike T u l l M e t a l s Co., Marathon liability-insurance against Doster that on insured. did, J.M. 1993). concedes additional v. clause does not insurance to subcontractor cites no and Marathon Automotive state insure Doster Doster provision that of might the 1061471 liability-insurance comply in this clause regard. additional, primary Doster proof with insurance regard and insured necessarily entered breach clause. Parker, of and r e v e r s e d Cobb, C . J . , and Murdock, the t r i a l and the i t s duty court of Marathon an provided liability- to claim contract as the t r i a l i n part, Lyons, JJ., erred procure in this to clause, while claim liability-insurance judgment and t h e cause I N PART; AND Woodall, claim as t o D o s t e r ' s the court's i n entering as t o D o s t e r ' s as t o t h e i n d e m n i t y I N PART; REVERSED a n d Shaw, Under a summary j u d g m e n t Accordingly, AFFIRMED i t s policies as to Conclusion i n favor alleging part Doster breach-of-contract a l l e g i n g breach of contract in failed fails. summary j u d g m e n t correctly named performed B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g , it Marathon insurance. IV. a in Marathon Doster's which Marathon of that clause, insurance, with i s affirmed i s remanded. REMANDED. Stuart, Smith, Bolin, concur. J . , concurs i n part 15 and dissents i n part. 1061471 MURDOCK, J u s t i c e I concur (concurring i n part i n the Court's summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r Inc., concerning Company, with Doster by f a i l i n g asserted against however, with contract with for Steel City's claim intention against that by Doster Steel City, conclusion when so as must read provisions.'" 222, 224 ( A l a . 2001) e v e n more indemnity damages character Celtic specific contract neither that Life in the Doster effect this to the intent, a sentence or term; i t context of and emphasis a p p l i c a t i o n here expressly breached a l l I n s . C o . v . M c L e n d o n , 814 (citations should disagree, to indemnify and, t o determine must e x a m i n e more t h a n an i s o l a t e d phrase I Marathon to give court each Inc. Doster. "'are construed of the p a r t i e s , i t s contract for a cross-claim that i t failed against Construction breached insurance court's Contractors, i t by D o s t e r Marathon to procure Doster its of the t r i a l of Marathon E l e c t r i c a l the Court's Contracts affirmance the claims Inc., alleging and d i s s e n t i n g i n p a r t ) . not be within i t may r e a s o n a b l y 16 i t s terms, be i n f e r r e d So. 2d omitted). i s the p r i n c i p l e "extended other to that losses nor Of of an or such that the p a r t i e s 1061471 intended 398, to 401, It pursue covenant against 110 is So. true 822, work-site Unland, i n j u r y to which contributed. 824 that a cross-claim in The i n f e r r e d that Under loss[es]" the City against which turn terms the is Pizitz, 215 have needed i f not contributory imputed to loss f o r the Ala. one the as by Marathon, to intended to indemnity covenant clause, of a Les indirectly Steel t o w h i c h " i t may to f a c t of negligence Doster parties of v. not would Doster specific the Pyle (1926). Steel i s s u e h e r e , however, i s not be them." City at reasonably against." "indemnified are "all liabilities, claims, suits, actions, proceedings, damages, losses, judgments, and expenses ... t h a t a r i s e i n any way, directly or indirectly, out of a failure by [Marathon] ( i n c l u d i n g the [Marathon] Design P r o f e s s i o n a l s ) t o : (a) carry out the Work i n a safe manner; (b) strictly comply with any applicable laws, regulations, b u i l d i n g codes, r u l e s , or industry standards; (c) exercise reasonable care in the p e r f o r m a n c e o f t h e Work o r t o e x e c u t e t h e Work i n a n o n - n e g l i g e n t manner; or (d) s t r i c t l y c o m p l y w i t h the r e q u i r e m e n t s of t h i s Subcontract." The intent of the parties reflected in Marathon to indemnify against any 17 this loss that language is i s imposed upon for or 1061471 suffered by by "indemnitee" [Marathon]" other i n any words, the c o n d u c t by an an one because 3 of the or "out above-listed t r i g g e r f o r the Marathon that of indemnity of a failure respects. clause r e s u l t s i n a loss being In i s wrongful imposed upon indemnitee. Unland's City were at fault indemnified D o s t e r was was a complaint chance that The negligence on fact accident and indemnifying would "Indemnitees part of any that, Doster's the because the f o r Unland's i t s own not that claim negligence according also have excused negligence Indemnitee or be other also Marathon against had and Steel defended Doster to there to the Unland's a l l e g a t i o n , Marathon indemnity diminished b r e a c h of contributed and because contributed potentially Doster because the not Doster because Marathon b e l i e v e d part shall both accident. " i n d e m n i t e e " and accident. that for his Doster an alleged or contributed from defending clause provided excused a legal to to the merely d u t y on the Indemnified Loss." The "indemnitees" include the "Contractor [Doster], Owner, and Architect, and their respective directors, o f f i c e r s , agents, employees, successors, i n s u r e r s , s u r e t i e s , a f f i l i a t e s , and assigns." 3 18 1061471 Once U n l a n d the only settled his claim remaining against City. Significantly, Steel City to Steel City itself. Steel City for clause Doster Doster [Steel City] losses, any and claims, other hold costs casualty solely was Doster. by to indemnify the indemnity City's indemnity unlike by to Doster to liability ... arising trigger " d e f e n d and harmless and a particular from any for personal indemnify and a l l i n j u r y or to i n d e m n i f y S t e e l C i t y even where S t e e l C i t y might be (Emphasis added.) for causing an for a personal performance of the from the the Thus, D o s t e r u n d e r t o o k r e q u i r e d was losses wrongdoing action [Steel City] ... by indemnitor) the Steel liability responsibility require required c l a i m by alleged Steel however, of responsible from" the from Marathon, by the a r e s u l t of because, not Doster, performance t h i s Agreement." d e f e n d and did had only and negligence agreement; i t simply D o s t e r was resulting loss against c l a i m was Doster this between (i.e., that Unland agreement w i t h party claims i n j u r y to another; i n j u r y or c a s u a l t y to a l l that "arise[] agreement between S t e e l C i t y and 4 As noted i n the main o p i n i o n , i n d e m n i f i c a t i o n f o r an i n d e m n i t e e ' s own negligence ordinarily requires "clear and u n e q u i v o c a l l a n g u a g e . " H a r s c o C o r p . v. N a v i s t a r I n t ' l T r a n s p . C o r p . , 630 So. 2d 1 0 0 8 , 1011 ( A l a . 1993) (citing Industrial 4 19 1061471 The Court's decision indemnity beyond c l a u s e i n the the parameters in this case of the parties intended to govern. and necessarily parties and the related to project work if 5 By negligence negligence and terms the in negligence owes other the Oxford of the indemnity f o r Marathon's the Doster the Doster those on work s i t e and occurred of the of behavior behavior each to indemnify Doster the Oxford Automotive that the whose and c o n t r a c t between the construction activities Marathon agreed at The concerns responsibilities site. coverage c o n t r a c t between Marathon c o n t r a c t was Marathon extends in two and Automotive clause, negligence for Doster's negligence conjunction with Marathon's resulted in a loss to Doster. T i l e , I n c . v . S t e w a r t , 388 So. 2d 1 7 1 , 176 ( A l a . 1 9 8 0 ) ) . So. 3d at n. 2. Doster never challenged i t s indemnification agreement w i t h S t e e l C i t y on t h i s basis, h o w e v e r , so no i s s u e i n t h i s r e g a r d i s b e f o r e u s . This understanding i s c o n s i s t e n t with another p o r t i o n indemnity c l a u s e , which e x p l a i n s that 5 the " i f i n any p r o c e e d i n g i n i t i a t e d by a t h i r d p a r t y , there is an apportionment of the relative contributions to the Indemnified Loss by the I n d e m n i t e e s on t h e one h a n d , a n d [ M a r a t h o n ] on t h e other, then [Marathon] s h a l l o n l y be r e q u i r e d t o d e f e n d and i n d e m n i f y t h e I n d e m n i t e e s t o t h e e x t e n t of [Marathon's] p r o p o r t i o n a t e c o n t r i b u t i o n . " 20 of 1061471 Doster's other referenced After Doster City. 7 because subcontractors, i n a n y way i n t h e i n d e m n i t y Doster assumed Steel a and Marathon contractual City's of Doster's indemnity it that Although i n some p a r t Marathon, Doster agreement, obligation against i n that Doster to exists separate 6 Steel only agreement. separate agreement, clause contains no i n d i c a t i o n separate the loss their to that Doster-Marathon contemplates indemnity undertaking C i t y , are not clause. executed cross-claim M a r a t h o n was n o t a p a r t y caused including Steel and t h e that agreement. suffered by by t h e a c t i o n s Steel City of Unland arguably was and, t h e r e f o r e , i s suffering a "loss" associated with Steel T h e p a r t i e s d i s p u t e when t h e i n d e m n i t y a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n S t e e l C i t y a n d D o s t e r was e x e c u t e d . Marathon a l l e g e s that a Doster employee signed t h e i n v o i c e c o n t a i n i n g t h e i n d e m n i t y agreement t h e day a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t i n question, without knowing i t contained an i n d e m n i f i c a t i o n a g r e e m e n t . Doster a l l e g e s t h a t t h e i n v o i c e was s i g n e d b e f o r e t h e a c c i d e n t . In e i t h e r e v e n t , t h e r e i s no d i s p u t e t h a t t h e i n d e m n i t y a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n S t e e l C i t y a n d D o s t e r was e x e c u t e d o v e r t h r e e m o n t h s a f t e r t h e agreement between Marathon and D o s t e r c o n t a i n i n g t h e i n d e m n i t y c l a u s e was e x e c u t e d . 6 The one-page document i s s e p a r a t e from D o s t e r ' s c o n t r a c t w i t h S t e e l C i t y , and D o s t e r ' s c o n t r a c t w i t h S t e e l C i t y i s n o t in the record. Aside from the paragraph p r o v i d e d above c o n c e r n i n g i n d e m n i f i c a t i o n , t h e one-page document a p p e a r s t o be a w o r k - o r d e r f o r m a c k n o w l e d g i n g t h a t o n J u l y 18 a n d 1 9 , 2 0 0 3 , S t e e l C i t y e m p l o y e e s w o r k e d 11 h o u r s o f o v e r t i m e " t e s t l o a d i n g " an o v e r h e a d c r a n e . 7 21 1061471 City's loss only because of a liberal, unconditional c o n t r a c t u a l i n d e m n i t y o b l i g a t i o n D o s t e r v o l u n t a r i l y assumed t o Steel City. which Marathon Marathon This was entered was not into Marathon's was a c o n t r a c t u a l aware bargain and o m i s s i o n s that Marathon contributory defend By issue claims responsibility fully incorporates obligation more would to Steel into by which of normally fault, Marathon's not contemplated third such as City at or awareness Court agreement party, party. of Steel on a 1 0 0 % the to be a v a i l a b l e t o any i n p u t by t h a t 22 however, i t agreed i s partially retroactively with agreement by indemnification C i t y e v e n when t h e l o s s City's of respective defenses, f o r the loss without words, i t s share for their o r i g i n a t i n g i n that v o l u n t a r i l y took Steel than other s u f f e r e d by a t h i r d benefit liable In when i t I cannot conclude, agreement that because, Doster Doster. f o r losses negligence, only with the making Marathon here existence into i t and D o s t e r any without against Marathon, or signed not come i s one t h i n g . responsibility least f o r a l l appearing, shoulder as b e t w e e n acts at to by Doster t o and t h a t , would i t s agreement responsibility shoulder not a party undertaking Doster an and f o r which 1061471 Marathon d i d not b a r g a i n . commitment City; Doster Marathon i s not made i n i t s i n d e m n i t y accordingly, Marathon clause i n r e f u s i n g to City's cross-claim against I n my did defend agreement w i t h not and responsible for breach indemnify the the Steel indemnity Doster for Steel Doster. view, the d i s p o s i t i v e p r i n c i p l e in this case i s the l o n g - e s t a b l i s h e d and sound p r i n c i p l e I noted at the o u t s e t : an indemnity should "extended or contract damages neither character intended at and 401, that expressly i t may 110 So. at Doster principle. Court's reasonably 824. I and the inferred P y l e v. that indemnity i s not respectfully this issue. 23 the clause in to terms, them." Marathon on its be I conclude therefore conclusion be within to covenant a g a i n s t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of between not losses nor that the Pizitz, in the dissent such parties 215 Court's accordance must of Ala. reading agreement with from this the

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.