Opinion ID: 1058146
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: aiu's duty to defend and indemnify uniwest

Text: Uniwest and its insurers assert that the circuit court erred when it held that Subdivision E-4 and Subdivision E-7 did not create a duty by AIU to defend and indemnify Uniwest. We agree. Subdivision E-4 requires AIU to defend and indemnify any entity insured under the CNA Policy. [12] Under the errors and omissions endorsement of the CNA Policy, Continental insured any entity Amtech was required by a written agreement to provide with insurance to the extent that it is required to be indemnified by [the] written agreement. Similarly, Subdivision E-7 requires AIU to defend and indemnify any entity to whom [Amtech was] obligated by a written Insured Contract to provide insurance. For this purpose, an Insured Contract is defined as any oral or written contract or agreement ... under which [Amtech] assume[d] the tort liability of another party. The circuit court concluded that neither provision applied because the Subcontract did not impose on Amtech a duty to defend and indemnify Uniwest. As we have determined, that conclusion was error because Paragraph 3.18.1 of the General Conditions was incorporated into the Subcontract and created such a duty. Amtech, ABM, and AIU argue that Subdivision E-4 and Subdivision E-7 still do not apply because Amtech had no obligation to provide insurance to Uniwest. We disagree. The Zipf Specifications require Amtech either to include Uniwest as an additional insured under its existing policies or to purchase separate insurance for Uniwest. [13] The clear language of the Subcontract contradicts the assertions by Amtech, ABM, and AIU that it did not incorporate the insurance requirement in the Zipf Specifications. As we noted, we interpret the unambiguous terms of a contract according to their plain meaning. PMA Capital Ins. Co., 271 Va. at 358, 626 S.E.2d at 372-73; see also Bentley Funding Group, L.L.C. v. SK & R Group, L.L.C., 269 Va. 315, 329, 609 S.E.2d 49, 56 (2005); American Spirit Ins. Co. v. Owens, 261 Va. 270, 275, 541 S.E.2d 553, 555 (2001). In addition, we read the contract as a whole and give effect to every provision when possible. Hood, 152 Va. at 258, 146 S.E. at 285; see also Dowling v. Rowan, 270 Va. 510, 518, 621 S.E.2d 397, 400 (2005); American Spirit Ins. Co., 261 Va. at 275, 541 S.E.2d at 555. Amtech, ABM, and AIU rely on our decision in VNB Mortgage Corp. v. Lone Star Industries, Inc., 215 Va. 366, 209 S.E.2d 909 (1974), and argue that the Zipf Specifications were incorporated only for a limited purpose. In that case we determined that in agreeing to provide materials and perform work in accordance with specifications incorporated in a contract between an owner and a general contractor, a subcontractor was bound to those specifications only for the purpose of providing the materials and performing the work. Id. at 369-70, 209 S.E.2d at 912-13. While a similar provision appears in the Subcontract in this case, it is distinguishable on two grounds. First, the Zipf Specifications are incorporated into the Subcontract not only by that provision's reference to the Prime Contract but by reference in Exhibit B as well. Moreover that provision of the Subcontract, unlike the one in VNB Mortgage, states that the specifications are incorporated herein and made a part of this Subcontract for all intents and purposes. Second, the Subcontract also states [t]he attached exhibits shall form the contract and explicitly lists Exhibit B. Exhibit B required Amtech to furnish and install its work in accordance with the Zipf Specifications. Nothing in the plain meaning of these words limits the incorporation of the Zipf Specifications to the technical requirements for the elevators to the exclusion of other requirements, including the insurance provision. Therefore we find that both predicates of the CNA Policy and Subdivision E-7 are met: the Subcontract required Amtech to defend and indemnify Uniwest and to provide insurance to Uniwest. Consequently, Uniwest was an insured under the CNA and AIU policies. Therefore, we hold that AIU had a duty to defend and indemnify Uniwest under both Subdivision E-4 and Subdivision E-7. [14]