Opinion ID: 2461938
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Reyburn's duty to defend

Text: The indemnity clause also imposes a duty to defend[i]f requested by [Plaster], [Reyburn] will defend any such suits at the sole cost and expense of [Reyburn]. This court has previously addressed an insurer's duty to defend under an insurance policy, but has only generally discussed the duty to defend arising from an indemnity clause. See Allstate Insurance Co. v. Miller, 125 Nev. ___, 212 P.3d 318 (2009); United Natl. Ins. Co. v. Frontier Ins. Co., 120 Nev. 678, 99 P.3d 1153 (2004); Hughes Properties Inc. v. Plaza Investments, 103 Nev. 136, 137-38, 734 P.2d 710, 711 (1987) (holding that the duty to defend clause contained within a sublease agreement was not invoked because the plaintiffs complaint did not sufficiently allege that the injuries arose from the subleased property). An indemnity clause imposing a duty to defend is construed under the same rules that govern other contracts. Crawford v. Weather Shield Mfg., Inc., 44 Cal.4th 541, 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 721, 187 P.3d 424, 430 (2008). However, [t]he duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify because it covers not just claims under which the indemnitor is liable, but also claims under which the indemnitor could be found liable. United Nat'l. Ins. Co., 120 Nev. at 686, 99 P.3d at 1158. Plaster argues that Reyburn breached its duty to defend by refusing to defend the allegations that involved Reyburn's scope of work. Plaster relies upon Crawford for its contention that Reyburn's duty to defend was triggered by the filing of the homeowners' complaint, regardless of Reyburn's ultimate liability. In Crawford, the jury determined that the indemnitor was not negligent and, thus, the trial court determined that the indemnitor was not required to indemnify the indemnitee. 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 721, 187 P.3d at 428. The trial court, however, concluded that the indemnitor still owed the indemnitee a contractual duty to defend against the homeowners' claims, insofar as those claims concerned the [indemnitor's scope of work]. Id. The trial court then appraised the percentage of the homeowners' claims that invoked the indemnitor's scope of work and apportioned those defense costs to the indemnitor. Id., 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 721, 187 P.3d at 429. The California Supreme Court upheld the trial court's decision and determined that the indemnitor was obligated to defend the indemnitee from the outset of any suit that arose from the indemnitor's role in the project. Id., 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 721, 187 P.3d at 431. Even if the indemnitor was later determined not to be liable, the duty to defend arose when the claim was made and was independent of the indemnitor's duty to indemnify the indemnitee. Id., 79 Cal. Rptr.3d 721, 187 P.3d at 435. The breach of that duty, the California Supreme Court recognized, may give rise to damages in the form of reimbursement of the defense costs the indemnitee was thereby forced to incur in defending against claims encompassed by the indemnity provision. See id., 79 Cal. Rptr.3d 721, 187 P.3d at 434, 432. Similar to Crawford, the Indiana Court of Appeals also limited the defense costs under a duty to defend to those costs incurred from defending against the indemnitor's scope of work. Henthorne v. Legacy Healthcare, Inc., 764 N.E.2d 751, 760 (Ind.Ct.App.2002). The indemnitor was not contractually obligated to pay the defense costs associated with the indemnitee's own negligence. Id. Following the standards enunciated in Crawford and Henthorne, we now hold that unless specifically otherwise stated in the indemnity clause, an indemnitor's duty to defend an indemnitee is limited to those claims directly attributed to the indemnitor's scope of work and does not include defending against claims arising from the negligence of other subcontractors or the indemnitee's own negligence. Accordingly, here we must first determine whether the district court properly granted Plaster's motion for judgment as a matter of law on its breach of contract cause of action before we consider the extent of Reyburn's obligation, if any, to pay for any of Plaster's defense costs.