Opinion ID: 1781291
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Waiver of the Exclusive Remedy Protection

Text: For his final argument for reversal of the trial court's dismissal of his lawsuit against Tanda, Cherry argues that Tanda waived the protection of the exclusive remedy provision when it agreed to the following clause contained in the construction contract: 6.31 ... the indemnification obligation under paragraph 6.30 shall not be limited in any way by any limitation on the amount or type of damages, compensation or benefits payable by or for CONTRACTOR or any such Subcontractor or other person or organization under workers' or workmen's compensation acts, disability benefit acts or other employee benefit acts. Cherry's argument here is erroneous because it simply misconstrues the common sense meaning of the contract. Clearly by this provision, Tanda agreed to indemnify the City beyond what it was required to pay an injured employee under the Workers' Compensation Act. In other words, this clause related to the amount of liability to the City, and not to an employee. In no way does this provision relate to or affect Tanda's obligations to its employees. Hence, this argument also has no merit. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's dismissal of Cherry's lawsuit against Tanda.