Opinion ID: 2380071
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Waivers of Subrogation and Warranty or Strict Liability Claims

Text: [¶ 28] Reliance contends that even if the waiver of subrogation is applicable to the chemical defendants, the court should not have enforced it in this case because such waivers cannot serve to protect parties from breach of warranty or strict liability claims. [¶ 29] Courts that have addressed the issue have held that unqualified waivers of subrogation serve to waive an insurer's right to all claims, including warranty and strict liability claims. See, e.g., Bastian v. Wausau Homes, Inc., 635 F.Supp. 201, 204-05 (N.D.Ill.1986); Town of Silverton v. Phoenix Heat Source Sys. Inc., 948 P.2d 9, 13-14 (Colo.Ct.App.1997); Village of Rosemont v. Lentin Lumber Co., 144 Ill.App.3d 651, 98 Ill.Dec. 470, 494 N.E.2d 592, 601 (1986). In this case the waiver contains a single qualification because section 7.1 of the contract expressly reserves the Church's warranty claims against the Contractor. Because the chemical defendants are not the Contractor, as that term is employed in the contract, however, the qualification does not apply to them. Thus, the court did not err as a matter of law in enforcing the waiver of subrogation with respect to warranty or strict liability claims. The entry is: Judgment affirmed.