Court Opinion

ID: 9730410
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:11:40.263833+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:06.308014
License: Public Domain

RATLIFF, Chief Judge,
concurring.
I concur in affirming the judgment of the Greene Circuit Court, but in so doing, I believe it is important to consider precisely what the court decided. Likewise, it also is important to consider what the trial court did not decide.
The exact language of the trial court's judgment is as follows:
"(1) The Indemnification Agreement between Moore and HH & N is valid and does not violate LC. 26-2-5-1.
(2) Moore must indemnify HH & N for the negligence of HH & N unless the claim of Peterson arises from the sole negligence of HH & N.
(3) In the event there is a determination that HH & N is negligent and that Dirk Peterson is negligent, HH & N would receive indemnification from Moore for the entire judgment owed by HH & N to Peterson because Peterson's negligence, by respondeat superior, is attributable to Moore.
(4) In the event there is a determination that HH & N is negligent and that Dirk Peterson is free of fault, there must be a determination as to whether or not Moore is, to any extent, at fault, through the actions of its other officers, employees, and agents, and if it is determined that Moore is, to any extent, negligent, then Moore must indemnify HH & N for any judgment owed by HH & N to Peterson.
(5) If it is determined that HH & N is negligent and that neither Peterson nor any other employee, officer, or agent of Moore is negligent, then the claim of Peterson arises from the sole negligence of HH & N and Moore has no duty to indemnify HH & N for any portion of the *149judgment obtained by Peterson against HH & N.
* * * u * *
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the final judgment is entered in favor of third-party plaintiff Huber, Hunt & Nichols as to the interpretation and validity of the indemnification agreement, and that allocation of fault among parties and non-parties and the amount of damages remains at issue in this matter."
Record at 75-76.
The judgment of the trial court does nothing more than interpret the contract. It does not purport to decide the ultimate issue, that of whether Moore must indemnify Huber, Hunt & Nichols (HH & N).
The trial court determined that the contract provided for indemnification of HH & N by Moore unless Peterson's claim for damages is based upon the sole negligence of HH & N. If Peterson's injuries resulted from the sole negligence of Moore, or from the joint or concurring negligence of Moore and/or its employees, including Peterson, and Peterson prevails in this action, then, according to the trial court's construction of the indemnity provision in the contract, HH & N is entitled to indemnification from Moore. I believe this construction is a correct interpretation of the indemnity provision. So construed, the indemnity provision does not violate I.C. § 26-2-5-1. Thus, I fully concur in the trial court's construction of the contract.
It is important to keep in mind, however, that the trial court reserved determination of the ultimate issue of indemnification for trial. Summary judgment was not granted on that issue. The determination of who is liable, and whether, under the circumstances, HH & N is entitled to indemnity, if indeed Peterson recovers, awaits a trial on the merits. The trial court so held, and I concur in that judgment.
I concur in the affirmance of the trial court, but write to clarify precisely what the court did, in fact, decide.