Opinion ID: 2257655
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Contract and the Indemnification Clause

Text: The indemnification clause at issue, labeled Liability and Indemnity Insurance, reads in relevant part as follows: The Subcontractor [Canning] shall indemnify and save harmless the Contractor [N.P.P.] and Owner from any and all claims and liabilities for property damage and personal injury, including death, arising out of or resulting from or in connection with the execution of the work. When entering into the agreement, Canning altered and initialed six different clauses in the contract, which had been drafted by N.P.P. The Liability and Indemnity Insurance clause was not among them. [2] The Directed Verdict While the jury was deliberating in the primary case, the trial court entered a directed verdict for Canning stating: I think that the contractual clause is ambiguous, and as such under the case law, including Rivers and Bryan versus HBE Corporation, [3] I am ruling in favor of Canning and Company because it does not the contract does not unambiguously provide that Canning Company, the subcontractor, will indemnify the contract [sic] N.P.P. for the contractor's own negligence. In rejecting N.P.P.'s argument that the contract language unambiguously provided for full indemnification, the trial court referred to testimony [by N.P.P.'s president] that he interpreted [the indemnification clause] as only providing indemnification of work done by ... Canning's negligence. [4]