Opinion ID: 1671205
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the claim of active constructors against sherman & fletcher

Text: Active Constructors sought to indemnify itself against Sherman & Fletcher for any damages it might be required to pay to the administratrix of the Estate of David George because of his wrongful death. Active contended that the negligence of Sherman & Fletcher was the primary cause of the death. The trial court dismissed the claim, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The only contention asserted by Active Constructors in this court is that Active has a jural right to indemnity and that the time has come to determine the constitutionality of K.R.S. 342.690(1) which purports to limit that jural right. Active relies upon Sections 54 and 241 of the Kentucky Constitution for the proposition that the General Assembly has no authority to limit the right to indemnification. The Court of Appeals did not make any determination of the constitutionality of the statute as it applies to Active Constructors. Perhaps a reason for this is that Active Constructors did not raise the constitutional issue in the Court of Appeals. Sherman & Fletcher contended in the Court of Appeals that the constitutionality of the statute should not be considered because notice was not served upon the Attorney General as required by K.R.S. 418.075 and by C.R. 24.03. In its reply brief filed in the Court of Appeals, Active Constructors stated: The constitutionality of KRS 342.690 is not the question. Rather, it is whether the Appellants' indemnity claim is barred by KRS 342.690. And again: . . . The constitutionality of KRS 342.690 is not an issue before this court. The appellants and the appellee do agree on one thing: This court should not even consider the constitutional issue.... We decline to consider the constitutionality of K.R.S. 342.690 as it applies to Active Constructors because Active did not raise this issue in the Court of Appeals.