Opinion ID: 1737148
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: regardless of any provisions to the contrary

Text: 1. Owner and Engineer have no duty to provide Contractor, any Subcontractor, or any of their agents or employees with a safe place to work or with safe appliances, equipment, or machinery. Owner and Engineer have no duty to inspect or approve the work site or the work practices, work methods, or appliances, equipment, or machinery of Contractor, any Subcontractor, or any of their agents or employees for the purpose of insuring either (1) the safety of persons or property involved in the performance of the contract or (2) compliance with any safety standards, rules, or regulations. All of the above duties are solely duties of the Contractor.  (Apel contract, Addendum No. 1) (emphasis added). Based on these provisions concerning both indemnity and responsibility for safety, as well as on deposition testimony, the trial court entered the declaratory judgment O'Toole had sought. Apel contends that the indemnity provisions of the Apel contract are ambiguous, because, it says, the provisions could be construed to indemnify O'Toole for its breaches of its own duties under its own contract with the City. Accordingly, Apel argues, the provisions should be construed against O'Toole because O'Toole drafted the contract. This argument by Apel overlooks the fact that the term contract was defined in the Apel contract itself: The written Agreement between the Owner and the Contractor, covering the performance of the work and the furnishing of the labor, equipment and materials in the construction. The Contract shall include, but shall not be limited to, the `Notice to contractors,' `Proposal,' `Plans,' `Standard Specifications,' `Special Provisions,' `Contract Agreement,' and `Contract Bonds,' together with all the Supplemental Agreements and `Extra Work Orders' that are required to assure completion of the work in a substantial and acceptable manner. (Apel contract, General Specifications, § 1.06). Thus, there is no ambiguity to be construed, and Apel's argument on this issue fails. Apel also contends that O'Toole voluntarily undertook an active and affirmative duty to call to the attention of Apel and Burrell any unsafe condition at the project, that O'Toole is therefore a joint tort-feasor, and that, as such, O'Toole is not entitled to indemnity or contribution. Although the general rule in Alabama is that joint tort-feasors are not entitled to indemnity, when one joint tort-feasor agrees in writing to indemnify the other, even for claims based on the other's own negligence, the agreement, if it is a valid indemnity agreement, can be upheld, and the joint tort-feasor can receive indemnification. Crigler v. Salac, 438 So.2d 1375, 1386 (Ala.1983); Industrial Tile, supra . Accordingly, even assuming that O'Toole is a joint tort-feasor, Apel's argument that O'Toole is not entitled to indemnity fails. Furthermore, considering the entire record, as well as the explicit provisions of the contract set forth earlier, the trial court would not have committed reversible error in finding as a fact that O'Toole did not undertake an active or affirmative duty to notify Apel or Burrell of any unsafe condition. Under the requirements announced in Industrial Tile, O'Toole presented sufficient evidence to sustain the trial court's judgment. The indemnity provisions were in a prominent position and were a part of the conditions attached to the bid proposal made by Apel for the sewer work. The evidence indicates that Apel, knowingly, evenhandedly, intelligently, and for valid consideration, entered into the agreement to indemnify O'Toole. The language of the indemnity provisions of the Apel contract is clear and unequivocal. Apel agreed to indemnify O'Toole against all claims based on damage, injury, or death arising out of, or connected with, the work covered by the contract, regardless of how it may be caused; Apel further agreed to indemnify O'Toole for loss on account of or in consequence of any neglect in safeguarding the work. The trial court did not commit reversible error in entering the declaratory judgment for O'Toole. The judgment is due to be affirmed. AFFIRMED. HORNSBY, C.J., and MADDOX, ADAMS and STEAGALL, JJ., concur.