ILNews

7th Circuit: New indemnity provision does not release employer from liability

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An employer will have to pay $4.23 million after the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals was unconvinced by the employer’s argument that language in a later contract superseded that of an earlier contract.

The 7th Circuit affirmed the judgment of the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, against Davis H. Elliot Co., Inc. in Mobile Tool International, Inc., and MTI Insulated Products, Inc., v. Davis H. Elliot Company, Inc., 12-2673.

Elliot, a Virginia-based company, leased bucket trucks form TECO, Inc., an Indiana corporation. Under terms of the lease contract, Elliot agreed to release, indemnify and hold TECO harmless from liability, loss, damage, expense, causes of actions, suits, claims or judgments arising from injury to an individual or damage to property.

When Mobile Tool International, Inc., acquired several assets from TECO, it began sending out a form invoice to Elliot each month. The invoice contains a separate indemnification clause that required Elliot to instruct all persons on the proper use and maintenance of the trucks, and that Mobile shall not be liable for any losses, costs, forfeiture or damages resulting from Elliot’s failure to provide instruction.

In June 2000, Samuel Large, an employee of Elliot, was injured while using the bucket truck. Large sued TECO and Mobile for negligent design and manufacture, product liability, and breach of express and implied warranties.

In April 2004, Mobile filed a third-party complaint against Elliot, requesting that Elliot be required to provide defense and indemnification to Mobile under the terms of the lease.

The Indiana District Court agreed with Mobile and held Elliot was required to defend and indemnify Mobile according to terms of the lease.

On appeal, Elliot argued the District Court erred in concluding that the lease, as opposed to the later invoice, controlled, requiring Elliot to defend and indemnify Mobile. Elliot asserted that the invoice superseded the terms of the lease, thus eliminating Elliot’s duty to defend and indemnify.

The 7th Circuit described Elliot’s arguments as “unconvincing.”

Comparing the invoice’s indemnity provision with the lease’s provision, the 7th Circuit agreed with the District Court that the language in the invoice did not supersede the language in the lease.

 “We find that these two provisions actually harmonize very well with one another, as opposed to conflicting,” Judge J.P. Stadtmueller wrote for the court. “The original Lease set forth a broad duty to defend and indemnify in situations arising primarily from use and operation of the bucket truck; the Invoice expanded that duty further to situations before use and operation – namely training and maintenance. On the plain language of these provisions, we must conclude that they do not conflict with one another.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Wrong Link
    The link in the article appears to be to a different case - United States v. Michael Brock.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Uh oh, someone is really going to get their panti ... uh, um ... I mean get upset now: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/31/arkansas-passes-indiana-style-religious-freedom-bill

  2. Bryan, stop insulting the Swedes by comparing them to the American oligarchs. Otherwise your point is well taken.

  3. Sociologist of religion Peter Berger once said that the US is a “nation of Indians ruled by Swedes.” He meant an irreligious elite ruling a religious people, as that Sweden is the world’s least religious country and India the most religious. The idea is that American social elites tend to be much less religious than just about everyone else in the country. If this is true, it helps explain the controversy raking Indiana over Hollywood, San Fran, NYC, academia and downtown Indy hot coals. Nevermind logic, nevermind it is just the 1993 fed bill did, forget the Founders, abandon of historic dedication to religious liberty. The Swedes rule. You cannot argue with elitists. They have the power, they will use the power, sit down and shut up or feel the power. I know firsthand, having been dealt blows from the elite's high and mighty hands often as a mere religious plebe.

  4. I need helping gaining custody of my 5 and 1 year old from my alcoholic girlfriend. This should be an easy case for any lawyer to win... I've just never had the courage to take her that far. She has a record of public intox and other things. She has no job and no where to live othe than with me. But after 5 years of trying to help her with her bad habit, she has put our kids in danger by driving after drinking with them... She got detained yesterday and the police chief released my kids to me from the police station. I live paycheck to paycheck and Im under alot of stress dealing with this situation. Can anyone please help?

  5. The more a state tries to force people to associate, who don't like each other and simply want to lead separate lives, the more that state invalidates itself....... This conflict has shown clearly that the advocates of "tolerance" are themselves intolerant, the advocates of "diversity" intend to inflict themselves on an unwilling majority by force if necessary, until that people complies and relents and allows itself to be made homogenous with the politically correct preferences of the diversity-lobbies. Let's clearly understand, this is force versus force and democracy has nothing to do with this. Democracy is a false god in the first place, even if it is a valid ideal for politics, but it is becoming ever more just an empty slogan that just suckers a bunch of cattle into paying their taxes and volunteering for stupid wars.

ADVERTISEMENT