Opinion ID: 2422592
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Liability to DePasquale

Text: Spino Bros. devotes much of its argument to its contention that because the jury found it was not negligent with respect to the fatal accident, and that because it was not liable for DePasquale's negligence, summary judgment was erroneously granted. In essence, Spino Bros. seeks to relitigate the very issues that were before this Court in Rodrigues. In that case, we explicitly held that Spino Bros.' negligence, or lack thereof, was of no consequence to whether it was legally bound to indemnify DePasquale, in accordance with the express provisions in the contract between them: Under the contract's clear terms    Spino Bros. agreed to indemnify DePasquale    `for any and all claims of any nature,' not just those claims arising out of Spino Bros.' negligence. Therefore, when the jury returned a verdict exculpating DePasquale    of negligence, judgment should have entered in DePasquale['s]    favor, requiring Spino Bros., pursuant to the agreed-upon contract terms, to fully indemnify DePasquale   . Rodrigues, 926 A.2d at 624. This controversy has been extensively litigated, both at the trial level and then before us on appeal, and we will not revisit those issues. The case before us is not about negligenceby Spino Bros. or DePasqualenor is it about the contract between those parties. Having already determined that Spino Bros. was contractually liable to DePasquale, the only issue before this Court is how that contractual liability has an impact on the coverage Beacon is required to provide under the insurance policy. [4]