Title: Hart v. Amour

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Hart v. Amour (2000-279); 172 Vt. 588; 776 A.2d 420

[Filed 20-Apr-2001]

[Motion for Reargument Denied 15-May-2001]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2000-279

                              MARCH TERM, 2001

Mark and Kalliope Hart	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
     v.	                               }
                                       }	Chittenden Superior Court
Peter Amour	                       }	
                                       }
     v.	                               }	DOCKET NO. 1529-98 CnC
                                       }	
Fusion Semiconductor Systems Corp.     }	Trial Judge:  Matthew I. Katz

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Third-party defendant and lessee Fusion Semiconductor Systems Corp.
  (Fusion) appeals the  grant of defendant/third-party plaintiff and lessor
  Peter Amour's motion for summary judgment  against Fusion in this
  negligence action.  Fusion claims that the court's grant of summary
  judgment,  enforcing an indemnification agreement between Fusion and Amour,
  was improper because the  indemnification agreement violates public
  policy. (FN1)  Because the indemnification agreement  properly assigns
  Fusion responsibility to indemnify Amour, we affirm.

       The following facts are not in dispute.  Fusion, as tenant, and Amour,
  as landlord, entered into  a commercial real estate lease, effective June
  1, 1996, which included the following provision:

    INDEMNITY REGARDING USE OF PREMISES.  Tenant agrees to  indemnify,
    hold harmless, and defend Landlord from and against any and  all
    losses, claims, liabilities, and expenses, including reasonable
    attorneys  fees, if any, which Landlord may suffer or incur in
    connection with  Tenant's use or misuse of the Premises. 

  The agreement also provides that Fusion maintain liability insurance of at
  least $100,000.  On  December 7, 1998, Hart filed a negligence complaint
  against Amour, alleging that on May 2, 1997,  Hart suffered severe injuries
  in his workplace (the premises leased from Amour by Fusion) as a  result of
  falling from a loft storage area, through a suspended ceiling, and landing
  on the floor below.  The Harts claimed that Amour breached the duty of care
  he owed to Hart and others working within  the building to provide a
  building reasonably safe and free from hazards.

 

       Amour subsequently filed a third-party complaint against Fusion,
  alleging that the lease  agreement between Fusion and Amour obligated
  Fusion to defend and indemnify Amour against  Hart's claims.  Fusion
  counterclaimed against Amour, alleging that Amour had been negligent in 
  delivering unsafe property to Fusion, and that Amour had breached the lease
  agreement by failing to  maintain the premises in good repair at all times
  and by violating other common law duties regarding  the maintenance of the
  premises. 

       Fusion and Amour subsequently filed motions for summary judgment in
  their respective  claims against each other, focusing on the indemnity
  provision of the lease.  The court granted  summary judgment to Amour,
  noting that the indemnity provision at issue was a conventional  component
  of commercial leases, and relied upon our decision in Hamelin v. Simpson
  Paper Co.,  167 Vt. 17,