Title: Uniwest Construction v. Amtech Elevator Services (order)
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 091495
State: Virginia
Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court
Date: April 21, 2011

PRESENT:  Hassell, C.J., Koontz, Kinser, Goodwyn, Millette, and 
Mims, JJ., and Lacy, S.J. 
 
UNIWEST CONSTRUCTION, INC., ET AL. 
 
v. 
Record No. 091495 
 
AMTECH ELEVATOR SERVICES, INC., 
N/K/A ABM AMTECH, INC., ET AL. 
 
AMTECH ELEVATOR SERVICES, INC., 
N/K/A ABM AMTECH, INC., ET AL. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
      OPINION BY 
v. 
Record No. 091496 
 
    JUSTICE WILLIAM C. MIMS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  September 16, 2010 
UNIWEST CONSTRUCTION, INC., ET AL. 
 
FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY 
 
v.  Record No. 091521 
 
AMTECH ELEVATOR SERVICES, INC., 
N/K/A ABM AMTECH, INC., ET AL. 
 
 
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY 
Marcus D. Williams, Judge 
 
In these companion appeals we consider whether Amtech 
Elevator Services, Inc., now known as ABM Amtech, Inc., 
(“Amtech”) had a contractual duty to defend and indemnify 
Uniwest Construction, Inc. (“Uniwest”) in an action brought 
against Uniwest by an injured Amtech employee and the estate of 
a deceased Amtech employee.  We also consider whether Uniwest 
was insured under Amtech’s insurance policies. 
I. 
BACKGROUND AND MATERIAL PROCEEDINGS BELOW 
A.  THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS 
The Fountains at Logan Square, L.L.C. (“Fountains”) 
executed a written agreement (the “Prime Contract”) with 
Uniwest in August 1999 to renovate a building Fountains owned 
in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  The Prime Contract was drafted 
using a form American Institute of Architects (“AIA”) document 
that included AIA’s General Conditions of the Contract for 
Construction (the “General Conditions”).  Paragraph 3.18.1 of 
the General Conditions obligated Uniwest to defend and 
indemnify Fountains 
[t]o the fullest extent permitted by law . . . 
from and against claims, damages, losses and 
expenses, including but not limited to 
attorneys’ fees, arising out of or resulting 
from performance of the Work, provided that such 
claim, damage, loss or expense is attributable 
to bodily injury, sickness, disease or death, or 
injury to or destruction of tangible property, 
(other than the Work itself) including loss of 
use resulting therefrom, but only to the extent 
caused in whole or in part by negligent acts or 
omissions of [Uniwest], a Subcontractor, anyone 
directly or indirectly employed by them or 
anyone for whose acts they may be liable, 
regardless of whether or not such claim, damage, 
loss or expense is caused in part by a party 
indemnified hereunder. 
 
The General Conditions also obligated Uniwest to “require each 
Subcontractor . . . to be bound to [Uniwest] by [the] terms of 
the Contract Documents, and to assume toward [Uniwest] all the 
obligations and responsibilities which [Uniwest], by these 
Documents, assumes toward [Fountains].” 
 
2
The renovations set forth in the Prime Contract included 
modernization of three existing passenger elevators and 
installation of a new service elevator.  Uniwest subcontracted 
this elevator work to Amtech in March 2000 by a written 
agreement (the “Subcontract”) governed by Virginia law.  The 
Subcontract expressly incorporated the Prime Contract “to the 
extent not otherwise excluded or modified by the terms of th[e] 
Subcontract.”  Paragraph 3 of the Subcontract amplified this 
obligation: 
[Amtech] agrees to be bound to Uniwest by all 
the terms of the [Prime Contract] and to assume 
towards Uniwest all of the obligations and 
responsibilities that Uniwest has by the [Prime 
Contract] assumed toward [Fountains].  All terms 
and conditions contained in the [Prime Contract] 
which, by the [Prime Contract] or by operation 
of law, are required to be placed in [the] 
Subcontract[] are hereby incorporated herein as 
if they were specifically written herein. 
 
Additionally, Paragraph 10 of the Subcontract required 
Amtech to defend and indemnify Uniwest: 
[Amtech] hereby assumes entire responsibility 
for any and all damage or injury of any kind or 
nature whatever, including death resulting 
therefrom, to all persons, whether employees of 
[Amtech], its subcontractors or agents.  If any 
claims for such damage or injury be made or 
asserted, whether or not such claim(s) are based 
upon the negligence of Uniwest or [Fountains], 
[Amtech] agrees to indemnify and save harmless 
Uniwest from any and all such claims, and 
further from any and all loss, costs, expense, 
liability, damage or injury, including legal 
fees and disbursements, that Uniwest may 
sustain, suffer or incur as a result thereof.  
 
3
Further [Amtech] agrees to and does hereby 
assume the defense of any action at law or in 
equity which may be brought against Uniwest or 
[Fountains] arising by reason of such claims. 
 
Finally, Exhibit B of the Subcontract required Amtech to 
“[f]urnish and install elevator work in accordance with 
‘Elevator Installation and Modernization Specifications for 
Logan Square East’ as prepared by Zipf Associates, Inc.” (the 
“Zipf Specifications”).  The Zipf Specifications required 
Amtech to “name [Uniwest] as [an] Additional Insured” to its 
insurance policies or “submit a separate . . . Liability 
Insurance policy” for Uniwest. 
B.  THE INSURANCE POLICIES 
Amtech had a commercial general liability insurance policy 
(the “CNA Policy”) from Continental Casualty Company 
(“Continental”) with a $1,000,000 coverage limit.1  The CNA 
Policy included an errors and omissions endorsement stating: 
In the event, you are required to add a person 
or organization as an additional insured on this 
policy under a written agreement or contract but 
you inadvertently fail to issue such 
endorsement, that person or organization is 
included as an insured.  Provided that, the 
additional insured is an insured only with 
respect to liability arising out of . . . your 
ongoing operations performed for that additional 
insured if the additional insured is an owner, 
lessee or contractor for whom you are performing 
                                                 
1 The first $500,000 of coverage was a self-insured 
retention managed by ABM Insurance Services, a division of 
Amtech’s parent company, ABM Industries, Inc.  We refer to ABM 
Insurance Services and ABM Industries, Inc. as ABM. 
 
4
work . . . .  Provided, further, that: [t]he 
additional insured is an insured only to the 
extent that it is required to be indemnified by 
your written agreement or contract with the 
additional insured; and [t]he insurance afforded 
to the additional insured shall not exceed the 
coverage and the limits of insurance required in 
the written agreement or contract, or the 
coverage and limits of insurance of this policy, 
whichever is less. 
 
Amtech also had a commercial umbrella insurance policy 
(the “AIU Policy”) from AIU Insurance Company (“AIU”) with a 
$25,000,000 coverage limit.  This policy insured any entities 
covered by the CNA Policy by including as an insured “[a]ny 
person . . . included as an additional insured in the policies 
listed in the Schedule of Underlying Insurance.”2  The Schedule 
of Underlying Insurance included the CNA Policy. 
The AIU Policy also included as an insured “[a]ny person 
. . . to whom you are obligated by a written Insured Contract 
to provide insurance such as is afforded by this policy but 
only with respect to . . . liability arising out of operations 
conducted by you or on your behalf . . . .”3  The AIU Policy 
defined “Insured Contract” to mean “any oral or written 
contract or agreement entered into by you and pertaining to 
your business under which you assume the tort liability of 
another party.” 
                                                 
2 We refer to this provision of the AIU Policy as 
Subdivision E-4. 
3 We refer to this provision of the AIU Policy as 
Subdivision E-7. 
 
5
Uniwest had a general liability insurance policy from 
Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association Insurance Company 
(“PMA”) with a $1,000,000 coverage limit.  Uniwest also had a 
commercial umbrella insurance policy from United States Fire 
Insurance Company (“U.S. Fire”) and a second tier excess policy 
from Federal Insurance Company (“Federal”), each with a 
$5,000,000 coverage limit. 
C.  THE ACCIDENT AND RESULTING LAWSUIT 
Thomas Stinson and Robert Bruce were employees of Amtech 
assigned to the elevator project.  Stinson and Bruce were 
working on a scaffold in an elevator shaft on January 15, 2001, 
when the scaffold collapsed and they plummeted to the bottom of 
the shaft.  Stinson died and Bruce sustained serious injury.  
Stinson’s estate and Bruce sued Uniwest and others in 
Pennsylvania.4 
PMA, Uniwest’s principal insurer, notified Amtech that 
Uniwest and PMA expected it to defend and indemnify Uniwest 
against the Employees’ lawsuit.  ABM retained a Pennsylvania 
attorney, Richard Hohn, to determine whether the Subcontract 
required it to defend and indemnify Uniwest.  Hohn determined 
that Paragraph 10 of the Subcontract was valid under 
Pennsylvania law but noted that the Subcontract was governed by 
                                                 
4 We refer to Stinson’s estate and Bruce collectively as 
the Employees. 
 
6
Virginia law.  He opined that the provision was valid under 
Virginia law as well. 
Based on Hohn’s opinion that Amtech had a duty to defend 
and indemnify Uniwest, ABM directed him to negotiate the terms 
of Uniwest’s defense with PMA.  PMA retained its own counsel, 
Joseph Gibley, for the negotiation.  Thereafter ABM agreed to 
defend and indemnify Uniwest “pursuant to the terms and 
conditions” of the Subcontract.  PMA accepted the offer and ABM 
retained James Lynn to be Uniwest’s counsel with day-to-day 
control of Uniwest’s defense.5 
In July 2005, ABM notified Continental and AIU that Lynn 
and Hohn expected the Employees to demand damages exceeding 
$20,000,000.  AIU subsequently informed Lynn that it had not 
joined in ABM’s agreement to defend and indemnify Uniwest.  ABM 
objected, contending that AIU had been informed of the accident 
as early as 2001 and was aware that ABM had agreed to defend 
and indemnify Uniwest for more than a year. 
In November 2005, Continental informed AIU that litigation 
expenses already had exhausted Amtech’s self-insured retention 
and were eroding coverage under the CNA Policy.  Continental 
determined that the AIU Policy umbrella coverage was exposed 
                                                 
5 Gibley continued to represent Uniwest on claims by 
Fountains against it and Amtech incidental to the Employees’ 
lawsuit.  Hohn continued to represent Amtech to preserve its 
defense that the Pennsylvania workers’ compensation statute 
barred the Employees’ further recovery from it. 
 
7
and tendered the remaining coverage under the CNA Policy to 
AIU.  Soon thereafter, AIU notified ABM, Lynn, and Gibley that 
it considered Paragraph 10 of the Subcontract void under 
Virginia law and reserved its rights under the AIU Policy, 
asserting that there was no Insured Contract which required it 
to cover the defense and indemnification of Uniwest.6  
Nevertheless, AIU retained Robert Devine as counsel to 
participate in the defense of the Employees’ lawsuit.  Although 
Devine undertook some defense responsibilities in preparation 
for trial, Lynn remained lead counsel for Uniwest.  Lynn also 
participated with Gibley in settlement conferences; Devine did 
not. 
By February 2006, AIU had ignored repeated demands from 
ABM, Uniwest, and Uniwest’s insurers to participate in 
settlement discussions and fulfill what they asserted to be its 
contractual obligation to defend and indemnify Uniwest.  At 
that time Uniwest and its insurers settled the Employees’ 
claims against Uniwest for $9,500,000. 
D.  THE LITIGATION PRECEDING THESE APPEALS 
Uniwest and its insurers filed a complaint against Amtech 
and its insurers in the Circuit Court for Fairfax County in 
October 2006.  Uniwest and its insurers alleged, among other 
                                                 
6 Uniwest promptly objected to AIU and Amtech and notified 
its own insurers, PMA, U.S. Fire, and Federal. 
 
8
things, that Amtech breached its contractual duty to defend and 
indemnify Uniwest in the Employees’ lawsuit.  The circuit court 
determined that the defense and indemnification provision in 
Paragraph 10 of the Subcontract was void pursuant to Code § 11-
4.1 because it indemnified Uniwest for its own negligence.  
Uniwest and its insurers then non-suited their action. 
Thereafter, Amtech, ABM, and AIU filed a complaint in the 
circuit court in May 2008 seeking declaratory judgment that 
they were not liable to Uniwest or its insurers “in any amount 
or on any basis.”  Uniwest and its insurers responded by filing 
counterclaims in which they again alleged Amtech had a duty to 
defend and indemnify Uniwest under the Subcontract, under 
either Paragraph 10 or Paragraph 3.18.1 of the General 
Conditions incorporated through the Prime Contract.  They 
further alleged that the negotiation between Hohn and Gibley 
formed an independent agreement to defend and indemnify.  They 
also claimed AIU had a duty to defend and indemnify Uniwest 
under Subdivisions E-4 and E-7 of the AIU Policy, that AIU had 
acquiesced to defending and indemnifying Uniwest by not timely 
reserving its rights, and that AIU was estopped from denying 
its obligation to defend and indemnify because it retained 
Devine and he participated in the Employees’ lawsuit.  Uniwest 
and its insurers also filed third-party complaints bringing 
similar claims against Continental. 
 
9
By agreement of all parties, the circuit court entered an 
order expressly incorporating its earlier ruling in the non-
suited action that Paragraph 10 was void pursuant to Code § 11-
4.1.  The circuit court entered a separate order by agreement 
of the parties, expressly limited to Continental, finding that 
Uniwest was an additional insured under the CNA Policy.7  It 
stated that “[f]or [the] purposes of all claims asserted in 
this action against [Continental] only, the [c]ourt finds that 
Continental has admitted that [Uniwest] is an additional 
insured under [the CNA Policy] . . . .  This order is without 
prejudice to any claims or defenses of any other party to this 
action.” 
After a five-day bench trial, the circuit court determined 
that Amtech did not have a duty to defend and indemnify Uniwest 
based on Paragraph 3.18.1 of the General Conditions.  To the 
extent the Subcontract incorporated Paragraph 3.18.1, it did so 
only to place Amtech in Uniwest’s shoes with regard to 
Uniwest’s duty to defend and indemnify Fountains.  The court 
also determined that communications between Hohn and Gibley 
                                                 
7 The agreed order found that the limits of the CNA Policy 
had been eroded by the defense of Amtech and Uniwest by Hohn 
and Lynn in the Employees’ lawsuit and by the defense of Amtech 
and ABM in the litigation brought against them by Uniwest and 
its insurers.  To the extent those expenses exhausted the 
coverage amount, Continental was discharged of further 
obligation.  Any unexhausted balance would be contributed to 
satisfy the judgment against Amtech and ABM in this case. 
 
10
negotiating the terms for Amtech’s defense and indemnification 
of Uniwest did not create an independent agreement by Amtech to 
defend and indemnify Uniwest.  Rather, those communications 
arose solely from Amtech’s belief at the time that it owed such 
a duty based on Paragraph 10 of the Subcontract, although that 
provision was in fact void pursuant to Code § 11-4.1.  
Consequently, Amtech had no duty to defend or indemnify 
Uniwest. 
The circuit court also determined that AIU had no duty to 
defend and indemnify Uniwest under either Subdivision E-4 or 
Subdivision E-7 of the AIU Policy.  Because there was no valid 
provision requiring Amtech to defend and indemnify Uniwest, 
Uniwest was not an additional insured under the CNA Policy and 
Subdivision E-4 was not implicated.  Likewise, in the absence 
of a valid defense and indemnification provision, there was no 
“Insured Contract” as defined by the AIU Policy to impose such 
a duty on AIU under Subdivision E-7. 
The circuit court further determined that AIU had not 
acquiesced to or become estopped from denying a duty to defend 
and indemnify Uniwest.  Although AIU retained Devine and he 
participated in the Employees’ lawsuit, there was no 
acquiescence or estoppel because he merely supplemented and did 
not replace Lynn as lead counsel for Uniwest.  Likewise the 
court held that AIU had not waived its ability to reserve its 
 
11
rights.  Because Uniwest never demanded that AIU defend and 
indemnify it, the timing of AIU’s reservation of rights did not 
constitute a waiver under California law, which governed the 
AIU Policy.   
The circuit court then determined that Amtech had a duty 
to procure insurance for Uniwest because the Subcontract 
incorporated the insurance requirements of the Zipf 
Specifications.  Amtech breached this duty by failing to add 
Uniwest as an additional insured under the CNA and AIU 
Policies.  Accordingly, the court found Amtech liable to 
Uniwest and its insurers for the $9,500,000 settlement between 
Uniwest and the Employees.   
The circuit court entered a final order awarding Uniwest 
and its insurers $9,500,000 in compensatory damages plus 
prejudgment interest.  Uniwest and its insurers filed petitions 
for appeal assigning error to the court’s determinations that 
neither Amtech nor AIU had a duty to defend and indemnify 
Uniwest.  Amtech, ABM, and AIU filed a separate petition 
assigning error to the determination that Amtech had a duty to 
procure insurance for Uniwest and, if it did breach such a 
duty, to the amount of damages awarded.  We awarded these 
appeals. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A.  STANDARD OF REVIEW 
 
12
We review the interpretation of a contract de novo.  PMA 
Capital Ins. Co. v. US Airways, Inc., 271 Va. 352, 357-58, 626 
S.E.2d 369, 372 (2006).  Thus, “we have an equal opportunity to 
consider the words of the contract within the four corners of 
the instrument itself.”  Eure v. Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock 
Corp., 263 Va. 624, 631, 561 S.E.2d 663, 667 (2002).  However, 
“[i]t is the function of the court to construe the contract 
made by the parties, not to make a contract for them.”  Wilson 
v. Holyfield, 227 Va. 184, 187, 313 S.E.2d 396, 398 (1984).  
Accordingly, 
[t]he contract is construed as written, without 
adding terms that were not included by the 
parties.  When the terms in a contract are clear 
and unambiguous, the contract is construed 
according to its plain meaning.  Words that the 
parties used are normally given their usual, 
ordinary, and popular meaning.  No word or 
clause in the contract will be treated as 
meaningless if a reasonable meaning can be given 
to it, and there is a presumption that the 
parties have not used words needlessly. 
 
PMA Capital Ins. Co., 271 Va. at 358, 626 S.E.2d at 372-73 
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).  In addition, 
the contract is “construed as a whole.  [Its] provisions are to 
be harmonized when possible, [and] effect is to be given to 
every stipulation when it can reasonably be done.”  Virginian 
Ry. Co. v. Hood, 152 Va. 254, 258, 146 S.E. 284, 285 (1929). 
Nevertheless, a provision that violates public policy is 
void and has no legal effect.  Shuttleworth, Ruloff & Giordano, 
 
13
P.C. v. Nutter, 254 Va. 494, 497, 493 S.E.2d 364, 366 (1997).  
The public policy of the Commonwealth is determined by the 
General Assembly, for “it is the responsibility of the 
legislature, not the judiciary, . . . to strike the appropriate 
balance between competing interests . . . .  Once the 
legislature has acted, the role of the judiciary is the narrow 
one of determining what [it] meant by the words it used in the 
statute.”  Dionne v. Southeast Foam Converting & Packaging, 
Inc., 240 Va. 297, 304, 397 S.E.2d 110, 114 (1990) (internal 
quotation marks and citations omitted). 
B.  AMTECH’S DUTY TO DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY UNIWEST 
Uniwest and its insurers assert that the circuit court 
erred when it ruled that the defense and indemnification 
requirement in Paragraph 10 of the Subcontract violated public 
policy pursuant to Code § 11-4.1.  We disagree. 
The statute states, in relevant part, that: 
Any provision contained in any contract relating 
to the construction, alteration, repair or 
maintenance of a building, structure or 
appurtenance thereto, including moving, 
demolition and excavation connected therewith, 
or any provision contained in any contract 
relating to the construction of projects other 
than buildings by which the contractor 
performing such work purports to indemnify or 
hold harmless another party to the contract 
against liability for damage arising out of 
bodily injury to persons or damage to property 
suffered in the course of performance of the 
contract, caused by or resulting solely from the 
negligence of such other party or his agents or 
 
14
employees, is against public policy and is void 
and unenforceable. 
 
Code § 11-4.1. 
Uniwest and its insurers argue that the statute is not 
implicated because the accident was not the result of Uniwest’s 
sole negligence.  Rather, they contend it resulted at least 
partly from Amtech’s negligence because Amtech built the 
defective scaffolding and was responsible for the safety of its 
employees working on the elevator project.  However, the 
unambiguous language of Code § 11-4.1 requires us to look to 
the contract containing the provision, not the circumstances 
from which the claim for indemnification arose, to determine 
whether an indemnification provision violates Code § 11-4.1. 
The operative language of Paragraph 10 states “If any 
claims . . . be made or asserted, whether or not such claim(s) 
are based upon the negligence of Uniwest or [Fountains], 
[Amtech] agrees to indemnify and save harmless Uniwest from any 
and all such claims . . . .”  (Emphasis added.)  The plain 
meaning of this language clearly obligates Amtech to indemnify 
Uniwest whether or not the claim is based upon the negligence 
of Uniwest.  These words irreconcilably conflict with the 
public policy expressed in Code § 11-4.1, which voids any 
contractual provision “which . . . purports to indemnify or 
hold harmless [Uniwest] against liability for damage . . . 
 
15
caused by or resulting solely from the negligence of 
[Uniwest].” 
Uniwest’s argument that the statute does not apply because 
Paragraph 10 is written broadly enough to encompass claims 
arising from the negligence of Uniwest and other parties is 
unavailing.  Because the phrases “caused by” and “resulting 
solely from” are disjunctive in the statute, it voids any 
indemnification provision that reaches damage caused by the 
negligence of the indemnitee, even if the damage does not 
result solely from the negligence of the indemnitee.  Thus, the 
issue is not whether an indemnification provision is written so 
broadly that it encompasses the negligence of parties in 
addition to the indemnitee.  Rather, the issue is whether the 
provision is so broad that it indemnifies the indemnitee from 
its own negligence. 
Paragraph 10 clearly reaches beyond the negligence of 
other parties and indemnifies Uniwest.  Therefore it violates 
Code § 11-4.1 and is void.8 
                                                 
8 In its separate brief, Federal argues that Code § 11-4.1 
does not apply because of its language stating that it “shall 
not affect the validity of any insurance contract, workers’ 
compensation, or any agreement issued by an admitted insurer.”  
That language is irrelevant here where the question is whether 
the indemnification provision of a construction subcontract is 
void pursuant to Code § 11-4.1.  The Subcontract is not an 
insurance contract and neither Uniwest nor Amtech, the parties 
who executed it, are admitted insurers. 
 
16
Uniwest and its insurers next assert that the circuit 
court erred when it found that Paragraph 3.18.1 of the General 
Conditions did not obligate Amtech to indemnify Uniwest.  We 
agree. 
The circuit court determined that to the extent Paragraph 
3.18.1 was incorporated into the Subcontract its effect merely 
was to require Amtech to step into the shoes of Uniwest and 
indemnify Fountains.9  The relevant language from Paragraph 3 of 
the Subcontract is that “[Amtech] agrees . . . to assume 
towards Uniwest all of the obligations and responsibilities 
that Uniwest has by the [Prime Contract] assumed toward 
[Fountains].”  (Emphasis added.)  The plain meaning of these 
words is that Uniwest’s duty to defend and indemnify Fountains 
became a duty by Amtech to defend and indemnify Uniwest. 
Two other courts have reached the same conclusion when 
considering similar subcontract language incorporating AIA 
indemnification provisions.  In Binswanger Glass Co. v. Beers 
Construction Co., 234 S.E.2d 363 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977), the 
subcontract required the subcontractor “to assume toward the 
Contractor all the obligations and responsibilities that the 
Contractor, by [the contract between the Contractor and the 
Owner], assumes toward the Owner.”  Id. at 364.  Georgia’s 
                                                 
9 There is no question that Paragraph 3.18.1 required 
Uniwest to indemnify Fountains. 
 
17
Court of Appeals ruled that language sufficient to incorporate 
the indemnification provision in the AIA General Conditions 
against the subcontractor.  Id. at 365.  Similarly, in Whittle 
v. Pagani Bros. Construction Co., 422 N.E.2d 779 (Mass. 1981), 
the subcontract stated:  “The Subcontractor agrees . . . to 
assume to the Contractor all the obligations and 
responsibilities that the Contractor by [its contract] assumes 
to” the town awarding the construction contract.  Id. at 780.  
The highest court of Massachusetts held that language 
incorporated the AIA General Conditions’ indemnification 
provision.  Id. at 781.  We find these decisions persuasive and 
agree with them.10 
We therefore find that the Subcontract incorporated 
Paragraph 3.18.1 and hold that it imposed on Amtech a duty to 
defend and indemnify Uniwest.11 
                                                 
10 While the provisions of the Prime Contract applied only 
“to the extent not otherwise excluded or modified by the terms 
of th[e] Subcontract,” we have found that Paragraph 10 was void 
ab initio.  Thus, it could not have excluded or modified 
Paragraph 3.18.1.  Nevertheless, Amtech, ABM, and AIU now argue 
that Paragraph 3.18.1 should not apply because the existence of 
Paragraph 10 in the Subcontract led the parties to believe 
Paragraph 3.18.1 would not apply.  Even if this argument had 
merit, it was not presented to the circuit court and we will 
not consider it for the first time on appeal.  Rule 5:25; 
Hawthorne v. VanMarter, 279 Va. 566, 581, 692 S.E.2d 226, 235 
(2010). 
11 In light of this holding, we do not reach the argument 
by Uniwest and its insurers that the negotiations between Hohn 
and Gibley created an independent agreement by Amtech to defend 
and indemnify Uniwest. 
 
18
C.  AIU’S DUTY TO DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY UNIWEST 
Uniwest and its insurers assert that the circuit court 
erred when it held that Subdivision E-4 and Subdivision E-7 did 
not create a duty by AIU to defend and indemnify Uniwest.  We 
agree. 
Subdivision E-4 requires AIU to defend and indemnify any 
entity insured under the CNA Policy.12  Under the errors and 
omissions endorsement of the CNA Policy, Continental insured 
any entity Amtech was required by a written agreement to 
provide with insurance “to the extent that it is required to be 
indemnified by [the] written agreement.”  Similarly, 
Subdivision E-7 requires AIU to defend and indemnify any entity 
“to whom [Amtech was] obligated by a written Insured Contract 
to provide insurance.”  For this purpose, an “Insured Contract” 
is defined as “any oral or written contract or agreement . . . 
under which [Amtech] assume[d] the tort liability of another 
party.” 
The circuit court concluded that neither provision applied 
because the Subcontract did not impose on Amtech a duty to 
                                                 
12 Uniwest and its insurers argue that the circuit court’s 
finding that Uniwest was an additional insured under the CNA 
Policy compels a finding that it was an additional insured 
under Subdivision E-4.  We reject that argument.  The circuit 
court clearly limited that finding to claims “against 
[Continental] only” and expressly stated that the order was 
“without prejudice to any claims or defenses of any other party 
to this action.” 
 
19
defend and indemnify Uniwest.  As we have determined, that 
conclusion was error because Paragraph 3.18.1 of the General 
Conditions was incorporated into the Subcontract and created 
such a duty. 
Amtech, ABM, and AIU argue that Subdivision E-4 and 
Subdivision E-7 still do not apply because Amtech had no 
obligation to provide insurance to Uniwest.  We disagree.  
The Zipf Specifications require Amtech either to include 
Uniwest as an additional insured under its existing policies or 
to purchase separate insurance for Uniwest.13  The clear 
language of the Subcontract contradicts the assertions by 
Amtech, ABM, and AIU that it did not incorporate the insurance 
requirement in the Zipf Specifications. 
As we noted, we interpret the unambiguous terms of a 
contract according to their plain meaning.  PMA Capital Ins. 
Co., 271 Va. at 358, 626 S.E.2d at 372-73; see also Bentley 
Funding Group, L.L.C. v. SK&R Group, L.L.C., 269 Va. 315, 329, 
609 S.E.2d 49, 56 (2005); American Spirit Ins. Co. v. Owens, 
261 Va. 270, 275, 541 S.E.2d 553, 555 (2001).  In addition, we 
read the contract as a whole and give effect to every provision 
                                                 
13 The actual term used in the Zipf Specifications is 
“Construction Manager.”  Although the Zipf Specifications do 
not define that term, the circuit court interpreted it to refer 
to Uniwest.  In addition, Uniwest and Federal reiterate that 
interpretation in their briefs in Record No. 091496.  Amtech, 
ABM, and AIU have never disputed that Uniwest is the 
Construction Manager.  
 
20
when possible.  Hood, 152 Va. at 258, 146 S.E. at 285; see also 
Dowling v. Rowan, 270 Va. 510, 518, 621 S.E.2d 397, 400 (2005); 
American Spirit Ins. Co., 261 Va. at 275, 541 S.E.2d at 555. 
Amtech, ABM, and AIU rely on our decision in VNB Mortgage 
Corp. v. Lone Star Industries, Inc., 215 Va. 366, 209 S.E.2d 
909 (1974), and argue that the Zipf Specifications were 
incorporated only for a limited purpose.  In that case we 
determined that in agreeing to provide materials and perform 
work in accordance with specifications incorporated in a 
contract between an owner and a general contractor, a 
subcontractor was bound to those specifications only for the 
purpose of providing the materials and performing the work.  
Id. at 369-70, 209 S.E.2d at 912-13. 
While a similar provision appears in the Subcontract in 
this case, it is distinguishable on two grounds.  First, the 
Zipf Specifications are incorporated into the Subcontract not 
only by that provision’s reference to the Prime Contract but by 
reference in Exhibit B as well.  Moreover that provision of the 
Subcontract, unlike the one in VNB Mortgage, states that the 
specifications are “incorporated herein and made a part of this 
Subcontract for all intents and purposes.” 
Second, the Subcontract also states “[t]he attached 
exhibits shall form the contract” and explicitly lists Exhibit 
B.  Exhibit B required Amtech to “furnish and install” its work 
 
21
“in accordance with” the Zipf Specifications.  Nothing in the 
plain meaning of these words limits the incorporation of the 
Zipf Specifications to the technical requirements for the 
elevators to the exclusion of other requirements, including the 
insurance provision.  
Therefore we find that both predicates of the CNA Policy 
and Subdivision E-7 are met:  the Subcontract required Amtech 
to defend and indemnify Uniwest and to provide insurance to 
Uniwest.  Consequently, Uniwest was an insured under the CNA 
and AIU policies.  Therefore, we hold that AIU had a duty to 
defend and indemnify Uniwest under both Subdivision E-4 and 
Subdivision E-7.14 
D.  DAMAGES 
Amtech, ABM, and AIU argue that our conclusions 
necessarily require that we remand for further proceedings to 
determine the extent to which the accident giving rise to the 
Employees’ lawsuit was caused by Uniwest’s negligence.  We 
agree. 
As we have determined, the Subcontract does not require 
Amtech to indemnify Uniwest for its own negligence.  Amtech is 
                                                 
14 In light of this holding, we do not reach the arguments 
by Uniwest and its insurers that AIU acquiesced in or is 
estopped from denying a duty to defend and indemnify or waived 
its ability to reserve its rights.  Finally, because we find 
that Uniwest is an additional insured under the AIU Policy, the 
remaining arguments by Amtech, ABM, and AIU are moot. 
 
22
 
23
not liable to contribute to Uniwest’s settlement with the 
Employees to the extent, if any, the accident was caused by 
Uniwest’s own negligence. 
Accordingly, we will remand for trial to determine the 
issue of relative liability for the accident and for entry of 
judgment against Amtech and AIU for compensatory damages based 
upon Amtech’s relative liability.  Damages shall further 
include the costs of Uniwest’s defense in the Employees’ 
lawsuit for which Amtech and AIU are liable based on their duty 
to defend it in that litigation, to the extent such costs have 
not yet been paid by Amtech and its insurers. 
III.  CONCLUSION 
We affirm the circuit court’s holding that Paragraph 10 of 
the Subcontract is void against the public policy expressed in 
Code § 11-4.1.  However, because we hold that Paragraph 3.18.1 
of the Prime Contract imposed a duty on Amtech to defend and 
indemnify Uniwest and we find that Uniwest was insured under 
Subdivision E-4 and Subdivision E-7 of the AIU Policy, we will 
reverse the contrary rulings of the circuit court and remand 
for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 
Affirmed in part, 
reversed in part, 
                                 and remanded.