Opinion ID: 2588674
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Brooks plaintiffs' claims are within the scope of the Hoffman/USF & E indemnity clause.

Text: Like the Providence/Hoffman indemnity clause, the Hoffman/USF & E indemnity clause has two parts. The claims asserted by the Brooks plaintiffs are within the scope of both. The first part of the indemnity clause in the Hoffman/USF & E contract holds USF & E liable for (i) any claims directly or indirectly arising out of ... any failure of [USF & E] to perform any of the terms and conditions of this Subcontract, or (ii) any claims arising out of the performance of or failure to perform USF & E's work under the subcontract. USF & E argues that the Brooks plaintiffs' claims are not within the scope of this first part of the clause because USF & E did not breach any of its contractual obligations under the Hoffman/USF & E contract, and USF & E's performance had nothing to do with asbestos. But, as we discussed in the context of the Providence/Hoffman contract, the phrase arising out of [the indemnitor's] performance is very broad and includes claims for any injuries sustained by the indemnitor's employees while on the job fulfilling the contract with the indemnitee. [34] It is undisputed that the alleged asbestos exposure occurred while USF & E employees were performing work contracted for by Hoffmanthe performance referred to by the first part of the indemnity clause in the Hoffman/USF & E contract. Therefore, the Brooks plaintiffs' claims are within the scope of the first part of the Hoffman/USF & E indemnity clause. [35] The second part of the Hoffman/USF & E indemnity clause makes USF & E responsible for any claims arising from injuries, including death to [USF & E's] employees, unless the injuries were caused by or resulted from the sole negligence of [Hoffman]. The Brooks plaintiffs' claims are also within the scope of this second part of the indemnity clause. USF & E is responsible to defend Hoffman for all claims of injury to USF & E employees, unless the injury was caused by Hoffman's sole negligence. Since the Brooks plaintiffs were USF & E employees, and their alleged injuries were not caused by Hoffman's sole negligence, their claims are also within the scope of this second part of the indemnity clause.