Opinion ID: 2588674
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Brooks plaintiffs' claims are within the scope of the Providence/Hoffman indemnity clause.

Text: In the first part of the Providence/Hoffman indemnity clause, Hoffman promises to indemnify and defend Providence for any claim arising out of ... the performance of this construction contract, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by a party indemnified hereunder. Hoffman claims that the Brooks plaintiffs' claims did not arise out of Hoffman's performance of the contract because its performance did not include any asbestos abatement responsibilities. Therefore, Hoffman argues that claims of asbestos exposure could not arise out of Hoffman's performance since its performance had nothing to do with asbestos. We have interpreted similar indemnity clauses very broadly in the past and found that an employee's claims arise out of an indemnitor's performance if the injury occurs when the employee is on the job that is the subject of the indemnification agreement. In Burgess Construction Co. v. State, the state and a construction contractor (Burgess) contracted to build a road. [17] Their contract included an indemnity clause. Two Burgess employees were killed in an accident, and wrongful death actions were brought against the state. The state then brought an indemnity action against Burgess. We summarized the text of the indemnity clause as follows: Burgess was required to indemnify and save harmless the State from all claims brought because of injuries received by any person on account of the operations of Contractor. [18] We concluded that the accident in Burgess was within the scope of the indemnity clause because the accident victims were Burgess' employees engaged in operations in fulfillment of the contract at the time of the accident. [19] In Duty Free Shoppers Group Ltd. v. State , a shop at the Anchorage International Airport had an indemnity clause as part of its lease with the state. [20] An employee of Duty Free sat down in a broken airport lounge chair during her coffee break and was injured. The employee brought suit and the state settled; then the state sought to enforce the indemnity clause against Duty Free. The text of the indemnity clause read as follows: [Duty Free] shall indemnify and save harmless [the state] ... from all claims... aris[ing] or result[ing] from any acts or omissions of [Duty Free] ... in connection with the use or occupancy of the Premises or any other portion of the Airport. [21] We concluded that the scope of the Duty Free Shoppers indemnity clause was broad enough to include the accident in that case, because the accident happened to the indemnitor's employee while she was on the job at the airport. [22] In Burgess and Duty Free Shoppers, we held that a clause requiring indemnity and defense for claims brought on account of or in connection with the indemnitor's work is broad enough to include any claims for injuries sustained by the indemnitor's employees while on the job that is the subject of the indemnity clause. [23] We also held that fault was immaterial to this analysis. [24] The Providence/Hoffman indemnity clause is similar to those considered in Burgess and Duty Free Shoppers. Because the Brooks plaintiffs were on the jobsite performing work for USF & E, and in turn, for Hoffman, their claims arise out of Hoffman's performance of the Providence/Hoffman contract, and the claims fall within the scope of the first part of the Providence/Hoffman indemnity clause. [25]