Case Title: Hamelin v. Simpson Paper (Vermont) Co.

Citation: 167 Vt. 17, 702 A.2d 86

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1997-08-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
Hamelin v. Simpson Paper (VT) Co.  (96-028); 167 Vt. 17; 702 A.2d 86

[Filed 1-Aug-1997]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                            No. 96-028

Robert E. Hamelin                            Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
    v.                                       Essex Superior Court

Simpson Paper (Vermont) Co. &                September Term, 1996
Simpson Paper Co.

     v.

Vescom Corp. & National Union
Fire Insurance Co.

Alan W. Cheever, J.

Barney L. Brannen of Plante, Hanley & Gerety, P.C., White River
  Junction, for third-party plaintiff-appellant Simpson Paper Co.

Kaveh S. Shahi of David L. Cleary Associates, P.C., Rutland, for
  third-party defendants-appellees

PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.

       JOHNSON, J.   Simpson Paper Company (Simpson) appeals an order of the
  Essex Superior Court granting summary judgment in favor of Vescom Corp.
  (Vescom) and National Union Fire Insurance Co. (National Union).  Simpson
  contends the court erred in ruling that Vescom is not required to indemnify
  Simpson for damages paid to an injured Vescom security guard and that
  National Union is not required to indemnify or defend Simpson under
  Vescom's insurance policy.  We conclude that the contract between Vescom
  and Simpson requires Vescom to indemnify Simpson under these circumstances
  and accordingly, reverse.

       The events leading to the suit were stipulated to by the parties.  In
  January 1992, Vescom and Simpson entered a contract in which Vescom agreed
  to provide security services at Simpson's plant in Gilman, Vermont.  In
  July 1992, Robert Hamelin, a Vescom security guard, was injured at the
  Simpson facility.  As Hamelin was making his rounds, he stepped on a

 

  wooden stair that gave way.  He received workers' compensation benefits
  through Vescom, and then filed suit in Essex Superior Court against
  Simpson.  Hamelin claimed his injuries were caused by Simpson's negligent
  failure to inspect, maintain, and repair the stairway.

       Simpson, in turn, brought a third-party action against Vescom and
  National Union.  It claimed that Vescom was required to indemnify Simpson
  under the contract, even if the damages were the result of Simpson's own
  negligence.  Simpson also alleged that National Union was obligated to
  defend and indemnify Simpson, because Vescom's insurance policy with
  National Union named Simpson as an additional insured.

       The parties settled Hamelin's claim by stipulation, leaving the claims
  between Simpson, Vescom, and National Union to be resolved by the court. 
  In return for a general release, Hamelin and the workers' compensation
  carrier received $55,000, paid equally by National Union and Simpson's
  insurance carrier.  All parties agreed the settlement was not a concession
  on the merits, and each insurance carrier agreed to compensate the other
  depending on the outcome of the litigation.  Simpson and Vescom/National
  Union then filed cross-motions for summary judgment.  In November 1995, the
  trial court denied Simpson's summary judgment motion and granted Vescom's
  and National Union's.  This appeal followed.

       When reviewing a grant of summary judgment, this Court examines the
  record to determine independently whether it supports the conclusion that
  there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party
  is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  V.R.C.P. 56(c)(3); see also
  Security Pac. Nat'l Trust Co. v. Reid,