Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01179/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01179-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

FIL~ D 

United States Co~rt ~ Appealn Tenth C1rcu1 • 

OHITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 2 5 1992 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, } 

a Municipal corporation of the } 

State of Colorado, } 

} 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

} 

v. } 

} 

UNITED AIR LINES, INC., a } 

Delaware corporation, } 

} 

Defendant-Appellee. } 

No. 91-1179 

(D.C. No. 90-5-776) 

(D. Colorado) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE and BRORBY, Circuit Judges, and HUNTER, District 

Judge.** 

The City and County of Denver (City} appeals the grant of 

United Air Lines' motion for summary judgment on the City's claim 

for indemnity. Because the City failed to provide United Air 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

**The Honorable Elmo B. Hunter, 

Court Judge for the Western 

designation. 

Senior United States District 

District of Missouri, sitting by 

Appellate Case: 91-1179 Document: 010110239044 Date Filed: 03/25/1992 Page: 1 
Lines with prompt, written notice as specified in the parties' 

lease agreement, we affirm. 

In July, 1984, Perry Stephens, a United Air Lines employee, 

was injured while unloading an aircraft at Stapleton Airport . He 

subsequently received workers' compensation benefits, which 

precluded a suit against United . On September 7, 1984, he filed a 

Notice of Claim against the City of Denver and in August, 1986, 

Mr. Stephens filed his complaint against the City. The City gave 

written notice of the lawsuit to United on October 6, 1986. 

The City defended the Stephens case, and the jury returned a 

verdict in favor of the City. Pursuant to the indemnity clause in 

the lease between the City and United, the City filed suit to 

recover the costs and expenses incurred in connection with the 

Stephens lawsuit. 

In the indemnity clause, the City agreed to "give prompt 

notice to the Airline of any claim or suit and the Airline shall 

have the right to compromise the same to the extent of its own 

interest. II The lease also provided all notices must be in 

writing. 

The City argues the phrase "any claim or suit" should be 

interpreted in the disjuncti ve, allowing the City to give notice 

to United of either a claim or suit. Under the facts of this 

case, such an interpretation would obligate United to indemnify 

the City for all costs associated with the Stephens suit accruing 

after the City gave written notice to United. 

We note that the extent of a contractual duty to indemnify 

must be determined from the contract itself. Wilson & Co. , 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-1179 Document: 010110239044 Date Filed: 03/25/1992 Page: 2 
Engineers & Architects v. Walsenburg Sand & Gravel Co . , 779 P.2d 

1386, 1387 (Colo. App . 1989). If written notice to an indemnitor 

concerning an action on the indemnity contract is required by that 

contract, then, for there to be reasonable opportunity to defend, 

that notice must be given according to the contract's terms. 

Trosper v . Wilkerson, 764 P.2d 375, 376 (Colo. App. 1988) . An 

indemnity agreement is subject to the same rules of construction 

which govern contracts generally. Id. 

The plain meaning of the notice requirement is that the City 

will promptly notify United if any demand is made against the 

City, whether presented as a claim or as a suit, for which it will 

seek indemnification. To read the "claim or suit" language in the 

disjunctive is contrary to the sense and purpose of the indemnity 

clause. 

The purpose of the notice requirement is to allow United the 

opportunity to initiate investigation and direct negotiations to 

minimize its exposure to indemnification costs. The City cannot 

unilaterally deny United that opportunity. Any investigation made 

by United's ramp supervisor of the Stephens incident does not 

suspend the City's obligation to provide United with prompt, 

written notice. Similarly, simply limiting damages to post-filing 

expenses ignores the fact the City's obligation to provide notice 

arose well before the City filed its answer in the Stephens 

litigation. 

Because the City and County of Denver failed to provide 

prompt, wri tten notice as specified in its lease agreement with 

United Air Lines, the City has no right to indemnification. The 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-1179 Document: 010110239044 Date Filed: 03/25/1992 Page: 3 
order of the District Court of Colorado granting United Air Line ' s 

motion for summary judgment is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 91-1179 Document: 010110239044 Date Filed: 03/25/1992 Page: 4