Court Opinion

ID: 9736568
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:59:52.008932+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:07.397584
License: Public Domain

Vanderbilt, C. J.
(dissenting). I differ from the majority in their interpretation of the indemnity clause of the lease agreement. The first paragraph thereof restricts indemnity to losses “occasioned by the operation and handling of this equipment.” If that were the only indemnity provision I would agree with the majority that the judgments in question do not fall within the terms of the indemnity clause.
We must, however, wherever possible, give effect to all of the terms of the agreement. The second paragraph provides that the defendant shall save the plaintiff harmless from all claims “occasioned through the equipment.” The plain meaning of these words is that, in addition to liability for losses due to the negligent operation of the equipment provided under the first paragraph, the defendant assumes liability for claims in connection with the • equipment which *36as here result from defects in the equipment, even if such defects are solely attributable to the plaintiff. In my opinion, the second paragraph of the indemnity agreement is entitled to as much weight as the first paragraph. It is not inconsistent with the first paragraph and to treat it as subordinate material is, in effect, to delete it from the agreement.
I would reverse the judgment and remand the case to the trial court for the entry of a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
For affirmance — Justices Heher, Oliphant, Wacheneeld, Burling, Jacobs and Brennan — 6.
For reversal — Chief Justice Vanderbilt — 1.