Vol. 1, No. 4 - July 1999

WSI demanded that Goettl defend it per the indemnity agreement but Goettl refused to do so. WSI and Cunningham settled the case, and WSI assigned its indemnity rights to Cunningham who then sued Goettl to recover the damages. At trial, the court granted summary judgment to Cunningham, concluding that Goettl was required by the terms of what it deemed to be a "general indemnity agreement" to indemnify WSI. This decision was reversed by the first appellate court on the basis that the court believed that the indemnity did not apply where the damages were caused by the indemnitee (WSI's) own negligence. Specifically, the court found that WSI's failure to conduct site inspections recommended by its engineer created a material question of fact as to whether WSI was actively negligent. Presumably, the court believed that if WSI was actively negligent, the indemnification requirement would not apply.

This decision was reversed by the Arizona Supreme Court which found that even if the indemnitee had been actively negligent, the indemnity requirement still applied. The indemnity provision in question reads as follows:

Lessor (WSI) shall not be liable to Lessee (Goettl] ... for any injury ... resulting from the condition of, or any defect in, the Premises. Lessee hereby agrees to indemnify and hold Lessor harmless from and defend Lessor against any and all claims ... arising out of or in connection with ... any accident ... in or about Premises, when such injury ... shall be caused in whole or in part by ... any act or negligence of Lessee....

Because the indemnity clause did not specifically state what would result if the indemnitee (WSI) was itself negligent, the court found it to be a "general indemnity." As a general rule, an indemnitee under such an agreement is only entitled to indemnitee from the consequences of other parties' negligence as well as its own passive negligence, but is not entitled to indemnitee against its own active negligence. But where there is clear and unequivocal language demonstrating that the indemnitee is be indemnified despite its active negligence, the clause will be enforced as written.

In this case, the court found that the language was clear and unambiguous, and that Goettl was, therefore, required to indemnify WSI (and now Cunningham) for the damages.

A state court in California declined to enforce a "no-damage-for-delay" clause that would have deprived a construction contractor of equitable adjustment for time delays and expenses caused by the project owner, City of Los Angeles. The city had superior knowledge concerning site conditions which it withheld from the bidders. The city also impeded access to the site.

In its Invitation for Bids (IFB), the city advertised for bids for the rehabilitation of the Venice Canals. This work included excavation of material on the bottom of the canals and the disposal of that material. The city learned while the IFB was still pending that the material on the floor of the canals was contaminated with pollutants and could not be disposed of in unclassified landfills as previously anticipated. The city also learned that work at part of the site would be prohibited by federal agencies during the months of April through September due to nesting terns.

In response to what it learned about the site, the city issued a revision to the IFB stating: "The construction stages may be interchanged to suit the requirements of any permitting agency or as directed by the City." The bidders were not expressly advised by the city, however, concerning the information that had become available to the city. In the contract that was awarded to the low bidder, G. A. MacDonald Construction Co., Inc., the terms and conditions provided that the city would not be liable for any delay damages other than for "unreasonable and unanticipated delays caused by the public agency." This was an exception mandated by California Code, section 7102.

Work on the contractor's critical path was delayed for four months because after the city issued the notice to proceed, the city was unable to obtain a disposal permit for the excavated materials for another four months. When the contractor filed a delay claim, the city asserted the "no-damage-delay" clause barred recovery. In deciding this matter, the California Court of Appeal concluded that the contractor was entitled to damages because the clause barring them was unenforceable pursuant to the exceptions stated in the statute.

This newsletter is published monthly as an electronic magazine, or "e-zine." It will be sent directly to email addresses of contractors, A/Es, attorneys, and risk management and insurance professionals. Archived issues will be maintained on the World Wide Web at ConstructionRisk.com.

Please visit us at our web site. This site has been created to help organize risk management information and materials into one place for easy access and use.

If you do not want to receive this newsletter over the email, please send us a note at Webmaster@ConstructionRisk.com stating that you want to be removed.

Disclaimer

This newsletter is distributed with the understanding that ConstructionRisk.com is not engaged in the rendering of legal services.  Further, the comments in this newsletter are for general distribution and cannot apply to any single set of specific circumstances.   If you have a legal issue to which your believe this newsletter relates, we urge you to consult your own legal counsel.   Any content or opinions expressed by the writers of this newsletter are set forth in their individual capacity and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of any writer's employer and are not to be attributed to any such employer.