Opinion ID: 1934735
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Scope of Indemnity Provisions.

Text: The construction contract between the owner and general contractor (which MPA argues is also applicable to Hudson) provided for indemnity (1) for the benefit of the owner and the architects, or their agents or employees; (2) for damages, losses, and expenses, including . . . attorney fees; (3) for any claim arising out of the work on the project; (4) provided such claim is attributable to bodily injury; (5) but only to the extent caused in whole or in part by negligent acts ... of the ... Subcontractor, [and] anyone directly or indirectly employed by them; (6) regardless of whether ... such claim ... is caused in part by a party indemnified hereunder. (Emphasis added.) For purposes of resolving this appeal, we will assume, as MPA argues, it is a third-party beneficiary of these agreements. The question of whether Prairie and Hudson are liable for indemnity is a matter for the court to determine as a matter of law. Ferguson v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 512 N.W.2d 296, 299 (Iowa 1994); Huber v. Hovey, 501 N.W.2d 53, 55-56 (Iowa 1993). None of the parties dispute this principle. Ordinarily, indemnifying agreements will be enforced according to their terms, as in any other contract case. Pirelli-Armstrong Tire Corp. v. Midwest-Werner & Pfleiderer, Inc., 540 N.W.2d 647, 649 (Iowa 1995). However, some unique rules apply in the construction of indemnity contracts. For example, where an indemnification is not given by one in the insurance business but is given incident to a contract whose main purpose is not indemnification, the indemnity provision must be construed strictly in favor of the indemnitor. 41 Am.Jur.2d Indemnity § 13, at 356 (1995) [hereinafter 41 Am.Jur.2d] (footnote omitted); accord Maurice T. Brunner, Annotation, Liability of Subcontractor Upon Bond or Other Agreement Indemnifying General Contractor Against Liability for Damage to Person or Property, 68 A.L.R.3d 7, 23-24 (1976) [hereinafter Annot.]. Also, an indemnity contract is strictly construed against the drafter, in this case MPA. See 41 Am.Jur.2d at 356; Annot., 68 A.L.R.3d at 23. Further, a party will not be indemnified for its own negligence unless the agreement provides for it in `clear and unequivocal' language. Payne Plumbing & Heating Co. v. Bob McKiness Excavating & Grading, Inc., 382 N.W.2d 156, 160 (Iowa 1986) (quoting Annot., 68 A.L.R.3d at 68-69). The rationale for this principle is explained by one authority, referring to statutes prohibiting the indemnification for a party's own negligence: The purpose of statutes making indemnity agreements in construction contracts void and unenforceable is to prohibit avoidance by parties to construction contracts of all risks created by their own fault associated with contract performance, to require employers to provide employees with a safe place to work, and to preclude delegating to subcontractors such duty. 42 C.J.S. Indemnity § 8b, at 85-86 (1991) (footnotes omitted). We believe this is sound policy. The only basis for liability asserted against MPA in the initial suit by Pugh was an allegedly defective design, so when MPA defended the case, it defended against a claim of its own negligence. The agreements relied on by MPA do not provide indemnification for MPA's own negligence in clear and unequivocal language. In fact, the general contract is confusing on this issue. The contract provides for indemnification regardless of whether or not such claim is caused in part by a party indemnified hereunder. (Emphasis added.) The contract did not provide indemnification for a claim caused solely by the acts of an indemnitee. In this case, the architects were responsible for the design of the project, so any claim of negligent design would necessarily be directed only at them. The contract itself casts further doubt on whether indemnification would be provided for MPA's own negligence. In the section of the general contract pertaining to indemnity, this provision appears in paragraph 3.18.3: The obligations of the Contractor under this Paragraph 3.18 shall not extend to the liability of the Architect, the Architect's consultants, and agents and employees of any of them arising out of (1) the preparation or approval of maps, drawings, opinions, reports, surveys, Change Orders, designs or specifications, or (2) the giving or the failure to give directions or instructions by the Architect, the Architect's consultants, and agents and employees of any of them provided such giving or failure to give is the primary cause of the injury or damage. (Emphasis added.) Because the contracts relied on by MPA do not meet the test of clear-and-unequivocal language and the negligence of Pugh cannot be imputed to his employer or a third party, the court did not err in refusing indemnity. AFFIRMED.