Opinion ID: 1802498
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Clear and Unequivocal Language

Text: After concluding that the contract did not contain express language requiring Natkin to furnish insurance to cover OPPD's own negligence, the court in Omaha P.P. Dist., 193 Neb. at 523, 227 N.W.2d at 868, stated: We then must consider whether or not the contract contains clear and unequivocal language that was the intention of the parties. Reading the language without analysis one might argue such coverage is afforded. At best, however, if that was the intention of the parties, it is ambiguous. Conversely, in Oddo, 233 Neb. at 9, 443 N.W.2d at 602, this court held: Although the lease's indemnity clause does not contain the word negligence, the intended consequence of indemnity is expressed clearly and unequivocallyContractor [Oddo] was obligated to indemnify Speedway concerning claims arising from Speedway's conduct, including negligence, but excluding claims based on Speedway's willful misconduct. (Emphasis omitted.) In Oddo, the indemnity clause in the lease provided that Oddo would indemnify Speedway for claims arising out of Speedway's conduct (including active, passive, primary or secondary). In addition, the clause stated that the  lessor [Speedway] shall only be liable or responsible for actions of wilful misconduct.  Finally, the lease declared that the purpose of the indemnity clause was to shift the risk of all claims relating to the leased property to the lessee during the entire term of this lease. (Emphasis omitted and supplied.) Id. Thus, we must determine whether the contractual language in the instant case is more like the language determined to be not clear and unequivocal in Omaha P.P. Dist., supra, or more like the language determined to be clear and unequivocal in Oddo, supra . The contractual language stating that Bunch shall carry sufficient insurance that will protect Nashua from all risks and from any claims that may arise out of or pertain to the performance of such work is similar to the claims for damages for personal injury, including wrongful death, as well as claims for property damages, which may arise from operation under this [c]ontract language found to be not clear and unequivocal in Omaha P.P. Dist. v. Natkin & Co., 193 Neb. 518, 227 N.W.2d 864 (1975). Furthermore, unlike the language found to be clear and unequivocal in Oddo v. Speedway Scaffold Co., 233 Neb. 1, 443 N.W.2d 596 (1989), nowhere is it stated that Nashua shall only be liable or responsible for actions of wilful misconduct. Moreover, when there is a question as to the meaning of a contract, it is to be construed most strongly against the party preparing it, in this case, Nashua. See, Omaha P.P. Dist., supra ; Peter Kiewit Sons Co. v. O'Keefe Elevator Co., Inc., 191 Neb. 50, 213 N.W.2d 731 (1974). Thus, if the parties intended for Bunch to provide liability insurance to protect Nashua against Nashua's own negligence, we determine that intention is not expressed or clear and unequivocal as a matter of law.