Title: Apel MacH. & Supply Co., Inc. v. JE O'TOOLE ENG. CO., INC.
Citation: 548 So. 2d 445
Docket Number: N/A
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: July 21, 1989

548 So. 2d 445 (1989)
APEL MACHINE &amp; SUPPLY COMPANY, INC.
v.
J.E. O'TOOLE ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC., and L.M. Lyons, Jr.
87-1530.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
July 21, 1989.
*446 John M. Laney, Jr. and Nat Bryan of Rives &amp; Peterson, Birmingham, for appellant.
Robert D. Hunter and Sally S. Reilly of Lange, Simpson, Robinson &amp; Somerville, Birmingham, for appellees.
ALMON, Justice.
J.E. O'Toole Engineering Co., Inc. ("O'Toole"), filed a declaratory judgment action against Apel Machine &amp; Supply Co., Inc. ("Apel"), seeking a declaration that a contract provision constituted an agreement by Apel to indemnify O'Toole. The trial court granted O'Toole the relief requested, and Apel appeals.
In October 1983, O'Toole entered into a contract with the City of Moulton, Alabama ("the City"), to provide certain engineering services in connection with a sewer improvement project for the City (this contract will be referred to as the "O'Toole contract"). O'Toole prepared bid documents for the City and reviewed the bids submitted by various contractors for work on the sewer improvement project. Apel's bid to serve as general contractor for the project was accepted, and Apel entered into a contract with the City ("Apel contract"). Apel subcontracted installation of the sewer pipe to Burrell Construction Company ("Burrell").
Tolbert Ward was an employee of Burrell on the project. On August 1, 1984, he and his coworkers were laying sewer pipe in a trench. While Ward was in the trench, the banks caved in on him, and he suffered personal injuries. It is disputed whether the sides of the trench were braced with jacks, or sheaths, or shoring, or were braced at all, at the time of the cave-in. Ward subsequently filed suit in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, against O'Toole, Apel, L.M. Lyons (as O'Toole's inspector on this job), Horace Burrell, and Bituminous Insurance Company, which allegedly undertook a duty to inspect the construction site. O'Toole filed this action for declaratory judgment, seeking a judgment declaring that it was entitled to indemnity from Apel as to any liability adjudged against it in Ward's suit. O'Toole's indemnity claim is based on the Apel contract.
The leading Alabama case on indemnity agreements is Industrial Tile, Inc. v. Stewart, 388 So. 2d 171 (Ala.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1081, 101 S. Ct. 864, 66 L. Ed. 2d 805 (1981). In Industrial Tile, the Court held:
Id. at 176.
O'Toole contends that the Apel contract contains two provisions whereby Apel agreed to indemnify O'Toole. Under one provision, O'Toole argues, Apel agreed to indemnify the City and O'Toole for all claims for personal injury arising out of "the work covered by the contract, regardless of how it may be caused":
(Apel contract, "Addendum No. 1") (emphasis added).
O'Toole argues that a second indemnification clause requires Apel to indemnify the City and O'Toole for all claims for personal injury "on account of or in consequence of any neglect in safeguarding the work":
(Apel contract, "General Specifications," § 7.06) (emphasis added).
Both of these provisions were included in the bid documents that O'Toole prepared for the City and were part of the conditions attached to Apel's bid for the project.
In addition, the Apel contract specified that Apel alone was responsible for the safety of the methods used to install the pipe:
(Apel contract, "Supplemental General Provisions of the Special Provisions") (emphasis added).
The Apel contract also stated that Apel was responsible for the safety of workers on the job site:
(Apel contract, "Special Provisions").
Further, the Apel contract stated that it was Apel's responsibility to see that safety precautions such as sheathing or bracing were employed:
(Apel contract, "Standard Specifications," § 801.12(c)(3)) (emphasis added).
Finally, the Apel contract states that Apel assumes sole responsibility for on-the-job safety:
(Apel contract, "Addendum No. 1") (emphasis added).
Based on these provisions concerning both indemnity and responsibility for safety, as well as on deposition testimony, the trial court entered the declaratory judgment O'Toole had sought.
Apel contends that the indemnity provisions of the Apel contract are ambiguous, because, it says, the provisions could be construed to indemnify O'Toole for its breaches of its own duties under its own contract with the City. Accordingly, Apel argues, the provisions should be construed against O'Toole because O'Toole drafted the contract. This argument by Apel overlooks the fact that the term "contract" was defined in the Apel contract itself:
(Apel contract, "General Specifications," § 1.06). Thus, there is no ambiguity to be construed, and Apel's argument on this issue fails.
Apel also contends that O'Toole voluntarily undertook an active and affirmative duty to call to the attention of Apel and Burrell any unsafe condition at the project, that O'Toole is therefore a joint tort-feasor, and that, as such, O'Toole is not entitled to indemnity or contribution. Although the general rule in Alabama is that joint tort-feasors are not entitled to indemnity, when one joint tort-feasor agrees in writing to indemnify the other, even for claims based on the other's own negligence, the agreement, if it is a valid indemnity agreement, can be upheld, and the joint tort-feasor can receive indemnification. Crigler v. Salac, 438 So. 2d 1375, 1386 (Ala.1983); Industrial Tile, supra. Accordingly, even assuming that O'Toole is a joint tort-feasor, Apel's argument that O'Toole is not entitled to indemnity fails. Furthermore, considering the entire record, as well as the explicit provisions of the contract set forth earlier, the trial court would not have committed reversible error in finding as a fact that O'Toole did not undertake an active or affirmative duty to notify Apel or Burrell of any unsafe condition.
Under the requirements announced in Industrial Tile, O'Toole presented sufficient *449 evidence to sustain the trial court's judgment. The indemnity provisions were in a prominent position and were a part of the conditions attached to the bid proposal made by Apel for the sewer work. The evidence indicates that Apel, knowingly, evenhandedly, intelligently, and for valid consideration, entered into the agreement to indemnify O'Toole. The language of the indemnity provisions of the Apel contract is clear and unequivocal. Apel agreed to indemnify O'Toole against all claims based on damage, injury, or death "arising out of, or connected with, the work covered by the contract, regardless of how it may be caused"; Apel further agreed to indemnify O'Toole for loss "on account of or in consequence of any neglect in safeguarding the work."
The trial court did not commit reversible error in entering the declaratory judgment for O'Toole. The judgment is due to be affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
HORNSBY, C.J., and MADDOX, ADAMS and STEAGALL, JJ., concur.