Opinion ID: 1058146
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: amtech's duty to defend and indemnify uniwest

Text: 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 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 ... 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] 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., 141 Ga.App. 715, 234 S.E.2d 363 (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 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., 383 Mass. 796, 422 N.E.2d 779 (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]