2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-14-2005 

# Longp or t O ce an P l az a v

. Rob e r t C at o As so c P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 03-3814

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " L on gpor t O c e an P l aza v

. Ro be r t C at o As s oc " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1022. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1022NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 03- 3814 N o. 03- 3882 LONGPORT OCEAN P LAZ A COND OM I NI UM , I NC. v. RO BERT CA TO & ASSOCI ATES, I NC . , ET AL. and THE W I ND OW ASSOCI ATES, I NC . , ET AL. T h e W in d o w A s s o c ia te s , In c ., A ppel l anti n N o. 03- 3814 LONGPORT OCEAN P LAZ A COND OM I NI UM , I NC. v. RO BERT CA TO & ASSOCI ATES, I NC . , ET AL. and THE W I ND OW ASSOCI ATES, I NC . , ET AL. R o b e rt C a to & A s s o c ia te s , In c ., A ppel l anti n N o. 03- 3882 ON AP P E AL F RO M T HE UNI T E D S T AT E S DI S T RI CT CO UR T F OR T HE

E A S T E R N D IS T R IC T O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA2 ( D i s t . C our tN os . 00- cv- 02231 and 02- cv- 01724) D i s tr i ctC our tJ udge: T he H onor abl e R onal d L . B uckw al t er

A r gued: M ay27, 2005 B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, A L I T O and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: J une 14, 2005) PA U L A . L I SO V I C Z ( A r gued) TI M OTH Y P. SM I TH Cou g h l i n Duf

f yKel l yLi s o v i c z M i d l i g e & W o l f f , LLP 350 M ountK embl e A venue P. O . B ox 1917 M orr i s t ow n, N J 07962- 1917 C ouns el f orAppel lantR ober tC at o & Ass oci at es , I nc. R I C H A R D H . M A R T I N ( A r gued) M IC H A E L P . D E V L IN M o n t g o me ry , M c Cr a c k e n , W a l k e r& Rho a d s , LLP 123 Sout h B r oad Str eet Phi l adel phi a, PA 19109- 1099 C ou nself

or App el l ee L on gp ortO cean P laza BA RBA RA S. M AG EN GLEN N M . CA M PBELL SHEI LA A . HA REN P o st & S c h e ll 1 6 0 0 Jo h n F . K en n ed yB o u leva rd FourPenn C ent er , 13 Fl oor th Phi l adel phi a, PA 19103 C ouns el f orAppel l ee M

elr os e Ent er

pr is e, I nc.T he W i ndow A s s oci at es , I nc. , r ai s es i t s ow n cl ai m s agai ns tL ongpor ti n N o. 03- 1 3 8 1 4 , tho u g h it also jo in s in C a to ’s b rie f s in N o . 0 3 -3 8 8 2 . W ith th e e x c e p tio n o f f o o tn o te 2, thi s opi ni on di s cus s es onl yC at o’ s cl ai m s , the r emai nderof the appe al havi ng been as s i gned t o m edi at i on. 3 OPI NI ON O F THE COURT P E R C U R I A M: B e c a u s e w e w ri te f

o r t h e p a rt ie s o n ly, w e d o n o t s e t f o rt h th e f a c ts o f th is c a s e . R obertC at o & A s s oci at es , I nc. ( “C at o”) appea l s fr om an aw ar d of att orney ’ s fee s and c o sts to L o n g p o rt O c e a n P laz a C o n d o m in iu m , In c . (“L o n g p o rt” ). C a to a rg u e s th a t it s 1 c o n tra c ts w ith L o n g p o rt d o n o t p ro v id e f o r th e a w a rd w ith th e c lar ityre q u ire d f o r th e m to be enf or ced unde rN ew J er s eyl aw . W e agr ee w i th C at o, and w e vac at e the aw ar d. I. A n aw ard o f f

ee s is r ev iew ed fo r ab u se o f d iscreti o n , b u t th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s under l y i ng l egal concl us i ons r ece i ve pl enaryr evi ew . See R ode v. D el l ar ci pr et e, 892 F. 2d 1 1 7 7 , 1 1 8 2 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 9 0 ) . S u c h c o n c l u s i o n s i n c l u d e th e Co u r t ’ s c o n s tru c t i o n o f th e t wo contr act s ati s s ue. See R am C ons tr . C o. v. A m . St at es I ns . C o. , 749 F. 2d 1049, 1053 ( 3d C i r. 19 84 ). S i nce the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s aw ard dep end ed o n it s const ruct i on of those c o n tr a c t s , th i s C o u r t ’ s r e v i e w i s e f f e c t i v e l y p l e n a ry. II. L ongpor tm akes tw o pr eempt i ve att acks on C at o’ s appea l . I tfi r s tar gues thatt he C our tl acks j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the aw ar d beca us e C at o’ s not i ce of appea l w as4

d ef ec ti v e. Itthen arg u es th at C ato f ail ed to p rese rve it s arg u m en t th at th e D istri ct C o u rt m isin terp re ted th e in d e m n if ica tio n c lau se s. N e ith e r c laim h a s m e rit. C at o di d notfi l e an a m ended not i ce a ft erei therthe O ct ober2003 or derm odi fy i ng the aw ard or the D ecem ber 200 3 o rderenter i ng j ud gm ent. A ccordi ng t o L on gp ort , these omi s s i on s l e a ve thi s Cour tw i tho utj ur i s di c t i on ov e re i the ror de r . Se e Fe d. R. A pp . P. 4 ( a ) ( 4 ) ( A) ( i ) , ( i i i ) , ( B) ( i i ) . W e d i s a g r e e . As th i s Co u r te x p l a i n e d i n P o l o n s k i v . Tru mp T aj M ahal A ssoci at es:

[W ] her e “s ubs equentappel l at e pr ocee di ngs m ani fes tthe appel l ant ’ s i nt entt o appea l the att orney ’ s fee s i s s ue, ” and w h e re “ th e o p p o sin g p a rtyh a d a n d e x e rc ise d a f u ll oppor tuni tyt o br i ef the i s s ue and di d notr ai s e anycl ai m of pr ej udi ce, ” thi s C our thas found a not i ce of appea l s peci fy i ng one att orney ’ s fee or ders uffi ci entt o confe rj ur i s di ct i on over an appe al fr om anotheruns peci fi ed att orney ’ s fee or deri n the s ame cas e. 137 F. 3d 139, 144 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ( quot i ng B ernar ds vi l l e B d. of Educ. v. J . H . , 42 F. 3d 149, 156 n. 10 ( 3d C i r . 1994) ) . C at o’ s appea l w as cl ear l yi nt ended t o ext end t o the O ct oberand D ece m beror der s . Si nce Longpor thas thor oughl ybr i efe d the r el evanti s s ues and has offe r ed no evi dence of pr ej udi ce, w e w i l l exer ci s e j ur i s di ct i on overthem under 28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e a lso b eli ev e tha t C ato p rop erlyp rese rve d it s arg u m en t th at th e D istri ct C o u rt m i s i nt erpr et ed the i ndemni tycl aus es . I n i t s br i ef i n oppos i t i on t o L ongpor t ’ s m ot i on for fee s and cos t s , C at o ar gued thatthe cl aus es w er e ambi guous beca us e “‘ [i ] ndemni fi cat i on’ i s a t erm thator di nar i l ys ugges t s , as betw een tw o part i es , the s hi ft i ng r es pons i bi l i tyforH avi ng s o concl uded, w e denyL ongpor t ’ s m ot i on t o quas h the appe al atN o. 03- 2 3 8 8 2 . T h e m o tio n ra ise s e ss e n tiallyth e sa m e f o rf e itu re a n d ju risd ictio n a l ar g u m e n ts r ej ect ed above . L o n g p o r t ’ s mo t i o n t o q u a s h th e a p p e a l a tNo . 0 3 - 3 8 1 4 i s a l s o d e n i e d . As L ongpor t ’ s r epl ybr i ef i n s uppor tof the mot i on r ecogni zes , C at o’ s agr eementw i th T he W in d o w A ss o c iate s, In c ., m a yo b lig a te th e latte r to in d e m n if yC a to f o r a n ya w a rd to L o n g p o rt. A s a re su lt, T h e W in d o w A ss o c iate s, In c ., sh a re s a n in ter e st w ith C a to in ch all en g ing the a w ard an d h as e v eryri g h t t o join it s b ri ef. S ee F ed . R . A p p . P . 2 8 (i ). 5 th e c laim s b ro u g h t b ya th ird .” A p p . at 2 9 1 . C a to d e v o ted a t lea st a p a g e o f its b rie f to this argu m en t. A lth o u g h the A p p en d ix d o es n o t exc erp t anym o re o f th e b ri ef , w e a re s at i s fi ed thatC at o di d notm er el y“al l ud[e] ” t o the i s s ue i n “s tr aycomm ent s orpas s i ng r efe r ence s i n as s ort ed document s . ” Longport ’ s B r . at33- 34. L ongpor tar gues thatC at o w as r equi r ed t o r ai s e the i s s ue ea r l i ert o pr es erve i t , but L ongpor thas fai l ed t o poi ntt o anyauthor i tys uppor t i ng thi s pos i t i on. T he r equi r ement thaterr or s be pr es erved i n t he tr i al courtcons erves j udi ci al r es our ces and s erves the i nt er es t s of fa i r nes s t o t he D i s tr i ctC our tand the appe l l ant ’ s adver s ary . See G ar di nerv. V . I . W at er& Pow erA uthor i ty , 145 F. 3d 635, 647 ( 3d C i r . 1998) . I tgi ves the D i s tr i ct C our tan opportuni tyt o corr ecti t s ow n err or s , obvi at i ng cos t l yappea l s . See i d. ; Pfei ferv. J ones & L aughl i n St eel C orp. , 678 F. 2d 453, 457 n. 1 ( 3d C i r . 1982) , vaca t ed on other groun ds, 46 2 U . S . 52 3 (198 3). T hese i nter est s have n ot been d i sserved si m plybecau se C a to w a ited u n til a f

ter trial to ra ise th e iss u e . L o n g p o rt h a d a n o p p o rtu n ityto re sp o n d to C a to ’s a rg u m e n t, a s d id th e D is tr ic t C o u rt , w h ic h f o u n d it “ w ith o u t m e ri t.” A p p . a t 2 9 3 . W e conc l ude thatthi s s uffi ced t o pr es erve the i s s ue. 26 III . W e turn t o t he mer i t s . I n N ew J er s ey , i ndemni fi cat i on agr eement s ar e i nt erpr et ed according t o fam i l i ar rules of co ntr actcon struct i on . S ee R am os v. B row ning F err i s I nd us. o f S . Jerse y , Inc . , 5 1 0 A . 2 d 1 1 5 2 , 1 1 5 9 (N . J. 1 9 8 6 ). C lear an d u n am b igu o u s o n es a re enfor ced a ccor di ng t o t hei rt erm s . See K ampf v. Fr ankl i n L i fe I ns . C o. , 161 A . 2d 717, 720- 21 ( N . J . 1960) . A m bi gui t i es ar e r es ol ved bythe fa ctfi nder , r el y i ng on s uch evi dence as “the l anguage us ed, the s urr oundi ng ci r cumst ance s , and the obj ect i ves s oughtt o be achi eved. ” Pepe v. T w p. of Pl ai ns bor o, 766 A . 2d 837, 840 ( N . J . Super . C t . A pp. D i v. 20 01 ). S ho uld such ev i den ce fail t o resol ve the am bigui ty , ho w ever, an indem nitycl ause m u st be str ict lyco n stru ed ag ains t th e ind em n it ee . S ee id. ( cit ing R am o s, 5 1 0 A . 2 d 1 1 5 2 ). W e a g re e w ith C a to th a t n e ith e r in d e m n ityc lau se u n a m b ig u o u slyre q u ire s it to r ei m bur s e Longportforfee s and cos t s i n L ongpor t ’ s ow n act i on agai ns tC at o. W hi l e ea ch cl aus e i s br oadl yw or ded, r efe r r i ng t o i ndemni fi cat i on “[t ] o the ful l es text entperm i t t ed by l aw ” for“anyand al l l i abi l i ty , ” thi s l anguage can s w eep onl yas faras the w or d on w hi ch it h in g e s. T h a t h in g e is th e w o rd “ in d e m n if y .” A lth o u g h th is w o rd c a n im p lya n yrig h t to r ei m bur s ement , i tcomm onl ypr es um es a tr i part i t e arr angement , i n w hi ch A r ecove r s fr om B forl os s es t o C . See B l ack’ s L aw D i ct i onary784 ( B ry an A . G arner , ed. i n chi ef, 8th ed. 2 0 0 4 ) (d e f

in in g in d e m n itya s “ e sp ., th e rig h t o f a p a rtyw h o is s e c o n d a rilyliab le to r ecove rfr om the partyw ho i s pr i m ar i l yl i abl e forr ei m bur s ementof expe ndi tur es pai d t o a thir d p arty ”); 41 A m . Ju r. 2 d Ind em n ity§ 1 (19 9 5 ) (giving a sim il ar d ef init ion ).7

C as e l aw confi r m s the curr encyof C at o’ s defi ni t i on. I n V al hal C orp. v. Sul l i van A s s oci at es , I nc. , w e expl ai ned thatan i ndemni tycl aus e r equi r es the i ndemni t or“t o bear the cos tof anydamages forw hi ch the i ndemni t ee i s hel d l i abl e. ” 44 F. 3d 195, 202 ( 3d C i r . 1995) ( emphasi s added) ; acc or d A dl er ’ s Q ual i tyB akery , I nc. v. G as et er i a, I nc. , 159 A . 2d 97, 110 ( N . J . 1960) ( “[I ndemni ty ] i s a r i ghtw hi ch enur es t o a per s on w ho, w i thout a c tiv e f a u lt o n h is o w n p a rt, h a s b e e n c o m p e lled , b yre a so n [ o f ] so m e leg a l o b lig a tio n , to p a yd a m a g e s o c c a sio n e d b yth e in iti a l n e g lig e n c e o f a n o th e r, an d f

o r w h ich h e h im se lf

is onl ys econda r i l yl i abl e. ” ( quot i ng B ui l der s Suppl yC o. v. M cC abe, 77 A . 2d 368, 370 ( Pa. 1951) ) ) ; s ee a l s o L ee W ayM ot orFr ei ght , I nc. v. Y el l ow T r ans i tFr ei ghtL i nes , I nc. , 251 F. 2d 97, 99 ( 10th C i r . 1957) ( expl ai ni ng thati ndemni ty“i m pl i es a pr i m aryl i abi l i tyi n one per s on, al though a s econd pe r s on i s al s o l i abl e t o a thi r d party ”) ; St r ong v. Pr i nce G e o rg e ’s C o u n ty , 5 4 9 A .2 d 1 1 4 2 , 1 1 4 4 (M d . C t. S p e c . A p p . 1 9 8 8 ) (“ In d e m n if ica tio n is an ag ree m en t t o reim b u rse o n e w h o h as b ee n h eld liable f o r th e a m o u n t of

h is l o ss.”); A M I In s. A g e n c yv . E lie, 3 9 4 S o . 2 d 1 0 6 1 , 1 0 6 2 (F la. D ist. C t. A p p . 1 9 8 1 ) (s a m e ). T h is defi ni t i on pr es um es an obl i gat i on t o a thi r d partythattr i gger s the i ndemni t or ’ s obl i gat i on t o the i ndemni t ee. A l though t he w or d m ays om et i m es have the br oaderm eani ng champi oned by L o n g p o rt , that m ea n ing d o es n o t em erg e u n am b igu o u slyfro m it s co n tr ac ts w ith C ato. In f a c t, th e su rro u n d in g lan g u a g e ten d s to u n d e rm in e L o n g p o rt’s r e a d in g . T h e c o n tra c ts r equi r e C at o notonl yt o i ndemni fyL ongpor tbutal s o t o “hol d [i t ] harm l es s . ” A hol d-8

harm l es s t erm nor m al l yr equi r es one partyt o “‘ as s um e[] the l i abi l i tyi nher enti n the under t aki ng, ther ebyr el i evi ng the otherpartyof the r es pons i bi l i ty . ’ ” V al hal , 44 F. 3d at 2 0 2 n .6 (q u o tin g B lac k s L a w D ictio n a ry6 5 8 (5 th e d . 1 9 7 9 )). L o n g p o rt h a s f a iled to e x p lain h o w it co u ld b e “ h [ e ]ld h a rm les s” in its o w n a c tio n a g a in st C a to . T h is w rin k le in the l anguage s ugges t s thatthe agr eement s cont empl at e i ndemni fi cat i on onl yw hen L o n g p o rt d e f

e n d s a th ird p a rty ’s la w su it. L ongpor tm ai nt ai ns thatC at o’ s i nt erpr et at i on r ender s s ect i on 12. 1. 1 of the C o n s tru c tio n A g re e m e n t s u rp lu s a g e , b u t L o n g p o rt d o e s n o t e x p la in w h ys e c tio n 1 2 .1 .1 sh o u ld b e a n ym o re o r l ess e x p an sive than sec ti o n 1 2 . 1 . 3 . B o th se cti o n s u se th e w o rd

“ in d e m n if

y .” A c c o rd in g to L o n g p o rt, th is w o rd u n a m b ig u o u slyim p lies a rig h t to re im b u rse m e n t ev e n in th e a b se n c e o f liab ili tyto a th ird p a rty . U n d e r a m o re p lau sib le r eadi ng, s ect i on 12. 1. 1 gi ves L ongpor ta r i ghtt o i ndemni tyforanybodi l yi nj uryand pr opertydamage, w her eas s ect i on 12. 1. 3 gr ant s i ndemni tyfora br oadercl as s of l os s es butonl yupon a s how i ng of fa ul t . I n anyevent , L ongpor t ’ s i nt erpr et at i on pr oves uns ucce s s ful atexpl ai ni ng the over l ap betw een the tw o s ect i ons and mustbe r ej ect ed. I V. Af t e rc a r e f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f

th e p a r t i e s ’ a r g u me n t s a n d s u b mi s s i o n s , we co n clud e tha t th e M an ag em en t and C o n stru cti o n C o n tr ac ts do n o t setfo rth C ato’s ind em n ityo b li g ati o n s u n am b igu o u sly . T h e D istri ct C o u rterred in aw ard ing L o n g p o rt f e e s a n d c o sts b a se d o n th e m . O n re m a n d , the D istric t C o u rt m a yc o n sid e r e x trin sicevi dence of the part i es ’ i nt ent . Shoul d s uch evi dence fai l t o r es ol ve the ambi gui tyi n the

a g re e m e n ts, th e tw o c lau se s m u st b e c o n stru e d stric tlya g a in st L o n g p o rt.