 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Daimlerchrysler Corp. v. G-Tech Professional Staffing11/13/2003
Approved for publication December 23, 2003.
Defendant G-Tech Professional Staffing, Inc. (G-Tech) appeals by right the judgment of Wayne County Circuit Court Judge William Giovan granting plaintiff DaimlerChrysler Corporation (DCC) summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). We affirm. DCC sued to enforce an indemnity clause in a written contract it had with G-Tech for "supplemental" workers. The underlying claim arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred when a worker supplied by G-Tech, Shane Smith, while driving a Jeep owned by DCC, struck and killed a pedestrian, Ronald Pilon. G-Tech's insurance carrier is not a party to this appeal.
Based on the undisputed material facts, the trial court did not err by concluding as a matter of law that the claim against DCC by Pilon's estate came within the unambiguous indemnity clause of the parties contract, and that DCC was entitled to judgment against G-Tech. MCR 2.116(C)(10); Hubbell, Roth & Clark, Inc v Jay Dee Contractors, Inc , 249 Mich App 288, 291; 642 NW2d 700 (2002).
This Court reviews de novo a trial court's grant or denial of summary disposition. Klapp v United Ins Group Agency, Inc , 468 Mich 459, 463; 663 NW2d 447 (2003). The interpretation of a contract is also a question of law this Court reviews de novo on appeal, including whether the language of a contract is ambiguous and requires resolution by the trier of fact. Id ., at 463, 469, 480; Mahnick v Bell Co, 256 Mich App 154, 159; 662 NW2d 830 (2003). An unambiguous contract must be enforced according to its terms. Wilkie v Auto-Owners Ins Co , 469 Mich 41, 51-52; 664 NW2d 776 (2003).
An indemnity contract is construed in the same manner as other contracts. Hubbell, supra at 291; Zurich Ins Co v CCR and Co (On Rehearing) , 226 Mich App 599, 603; 576 NW2d 392 (1998). Thus, an unambiguous written indemnity contract must be enforced according to the plain and ordinary meaning of the words used in the instrument. Id. at 604-605. The parties may, of course, specifically assign a different meaning to the words used in a contract. Id. at 605 n 3. And, the circumstances may clearly indicate a word used in a contract has a meaning contrary to its ordinary usage. Id. at 608 n 4.
Affidavits, depositions, admissions, or other documentary evidence must support a motion for summary disposition based on MCR 2.116(C) (10). MCR 2.116(G)(3)(b); Patterson v Kleiman , 447 Mich 429, 432; 526 NW2d 879 (1994). The moving party must specifically identify the undisputed factual issues and support its position with evidence. MCR 2.116(G)(4), Maiden v Rozwood , 461 Mich 109, 120; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). The trial court must consider the submitted evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. MCR 2.116(G)(5); Mahnick, supra at 157. If the moving party fulfills its initial burden, the party opposing the motion then must demonstrate with supporting evidence that a genuine and material issue of disputed fact exists. MCR 2.116(G)(4); Crown Technology Park v D & N Bank, FSB , 242 Mich App 538, 547; 619 NW2d 66 (2000). If there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, the moving party is entitled to summary disposition as a matter of law. MCR 2.116(C)(10); Mahnick, supra .
G-Tech, in essence, argues that it must indemnify DCC only for personal injuries that occur when the workers it supplied to DCC are actually performing tasks for DCC. G-Tech's position lacks merit based on the undisputed facts and the unambiguous contract language. The parties do not dispute: (1) that G-Tech supplied Smith to DCC pursuant to their contract, (2) that Smith was driving a DCC-owned Jeep with the permission of DCC, and (3) that Smith would not h
Page 1 2 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|