Opinion ID: 1962876
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Inclusion of Indemnitee's Negligence

Text: The Bank relies on the proposition that an indemnitee may be indemnified against his or her own negligence if the contract contains express language to that effect or contains clear and unequivocal language that that is the intention of the parties. [27] The parties to the contract are presumed to intend that the indemnitee shall not be indemnified for a loss occasioned by his or her own negligence unless the language of the contract affirmatively expresses an intent to indemnify for such loss. [28] The Bank argues that the language at issue in this case does not clearly set forth that Lauvetz should be indemnified for its own negligence. But the language at issue quite clearly requires the Bank to indemnify Lauvetz for something. And it is difficult to read the specific exclusion of gross negligence from indemnification as anything other than the inclusion of ordinary negligence. [29] An indemnity agreement is a contract to be construed according to the principles generally applied in construction or interpretation of other contracts. [30] And a contract must receive a reasonable construction and must be construed as a whole, and if possible, effect must be given to every part of the contract. [31] The specific exclusion of the Bank's ordinary negligence from Lauvetz' duty to indemnify it demonstrates that the parties were aware of the distinction and chose not to exclude ordinary negligence from the Bank's duty to indemnify Lauvetz. Paragraph 20 plainly requires the Bank to indemnify Lauvetz for any claim or damage arising out of any injury occurring in the building to a customer of the Bank, except for claims arising from Lauvetz' gross negligence or willful misconduct. Gross negligence is great or excessive negligence, which indicates the absence of even slight care in the performance of a duty. [32] If any injury within the meaning of paragraph 20 did not include the indemnitee's negligence, it would have been unnecessary to specifically exclude the Bank's negligence and Lauvetz' gross negligence. Because paragraph 20 places a duty on the Bank to indemnify Lauvetz for any injury other than gross negligence, it clearly still includes negligence that is less than gross, [33] just as Lauvetz' duty to indemnify the Bank does not.