 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rentenbach Constructors11/13/2000
at would have, otherwise, been a void and unenforceable provision. We respectfully disagree.
The insurance coverage which Rentenbach is required to maintain under the contract does not extend beyond Rentenbach's own liability. Since the indemnity provision at Section 14.1 is primarily void and unenforceable under T.C.A. 62-6-123, Rentenbach is not liable for indemnification and the insurance does not come into play. We find that Rentenbach' duty to carry liability insurance has no bearing on the validity and enforceability of Section 14.1.
Finally, Mathews and Ball contend that, even if the indemnity provision at Section 14.1 is void and unenforceable, Rentenbach still has an obligation to indemnify them under Section 3.18.1 of the General Conditions of the contract.
The indemnity provision at Section 14.1 is contained within the signed agreement between Ball and Rentenbach. Section 3.18.1 is part of the General Conditions contained within the Specifications for the construction project. Pursuant to Section 1.1.1 of the General Conditions, the Contract Document which makes up the construction contract in this case includes the Specifications and the agreement signed by Ball and Rentenbach. The following statement is set forth on a page of the Specifications:
The form of agreement between contractor and Owner shall take precedence over any other terms and conditions of these specifications.
As stated, the indemnity provision at Section 14.1 provides that Ball will be indemnified for Ball's sole negligence. The indemnity provision at Section 3.18.1 provides that Ball not be indemnified for Ball's sole negligence , but will only be indemnified to the extent that the loss secured against is caused ' in whole or in part by negligent acts or omissions of the Contractor, a Subcontractor, anyone directly or indirectly employed by them or anyone for whose acts they may be liable...'
Ball cannot be allowed indemnification for it's sole negligence and, at the same time be denied indemnification for it's sole negligence. Accordingly, we agree with the Chancellor's holding that Section 3.18.1 is in conflict with Section 14.1 and Section 3.18.1 is, therefore, invalidated, Section 14.1 taking precedence under the contract.
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of the Chancellor with respect to the validity and enforceability of the indemnity provision at Section 14.1 of the contract between Ball and Rentenbach. We further reverse the Chancellor's judgment with respect to Rentenbach's obligation to indemnify Mathews and Ball for their defense of the Circuit Court lawsuits filed against them and with respect to Rentenbach's obligation to indemnify Mathews for any judgment rendered in those lawsuits. We remand for such further proceedings, if any, as may be necessary consistent with this opinion and collection of costs below. We adjudge costs of appeal against Appellees, Mathews Corporation and Ball Corporation.
|