Western Sling and Cable Co., Inc. v. Hamilton

Decision Date26 May 1989
Citation545 So.2d 29
PartiesWESTERN SLING AND CABLE COMPANY, INC., and Star Industrial Supply Company, Inc., wholly owned subsidiaries of Citation Carolina Corporation v. Howard C. HAMILTON and Mildred C. Hamilton. 87-1319.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

David R. Donaldson of Ritchie and Rediker, Birmingham, for appellants.

Jack Keyes of Ausman, Keyes and Keyes, Bessemer, for appellees.

MADDOX, Justice.

This appeal involves a declaratory judgment action in which the sellers sought a construction of an agreement for the sale of a business. The parties stipulated the facts and submitted the case to the trial judge for a legal declaration of the rights and duties of the parties under an indemnification provision of the contract. The trial court made a declaration against the purchaser, and in doing so applied the rule that an ambiguous contract is generally construed against the drafter, which in this case was the purchaser.

Appellant's main argument on this appeal is that an exception to this general rule should apply in this case because each of the parties was knowledgeable and each had advice of counsel; appellant argues that there is no reason for the application of the rule in this case. We agree.

FACTS

Howard and Mildred Hamilton entered into a stock sale agreement to sell Western Sling and Cable Company ("Western Sling") to Citation Carolina Corporation ("Citation"). The sales agreement contained an indemnity clause, which provided:

"The Sellers jointly and severally shall indemnify Purchaser and hold it harmless from any and all loss, liability, and expense, including attorney's fees, resulting from or arising out of:

" * * * *

"(2) liabilities or claims against the Corporation or Purchaser of which Sellers had actual knowledge arising out of events, performance under contracts or transactions involving the Corporation and occurring on or before December 18, 1984 not included as liabilities in the said Balance Sheet...."

After the sale was completed, Western American Enterprises, Inc. ("Western American"), brought suit against Western Sling, alleging breach of contract and tortious interference with Western American's business and contractual relationships.

Citation, as purchaser of Western Sling, filed an answer denying the material allegations of Western American's complaint and asserting affirmative defenses. Citation also filed a third party complaint against the Hamiltons. The Western American case is still pending in the trial court. Both Citation and the Hamiltons have defended the Western American action.

Citation 1 has withheld the amount of attorney fees incurred in defending the Western American claim from the monthly installment payments made to the Hamiltons in connection with the purchase of Western Sling. The Hamiltons filed this declaratory judgment action to determine whether Citation has the right to offset its attorney fees incurred in the defense of the Western American claim, 2 arguing that the indemnity provision of the sales contract related to liability but not to disputed claims. They contend that if there is no adjudication that Western Sling is liable to Western American then there is no corresponding liability for the Hamiltons under the terms of the agreement.

Citation argues that the indemnification was an indemnification against liability or claims and, therefore, that an adjudication of liability in the Western American case is not necessary to create an obligation on the part of the Hamiltons to indemnify Citation for its attorney fees in connection with defending the claim. The trial court in its order stated:

"The court finds that the plaintiffs have agreed to indemnify the corporation or purchaser for attorneys' fees in defending claims against the corporation.

"Indemnification against loss and indemnification against liability have differing meanings. The first means to make whole only after the loss has actually been suffered or paid and the second attaches as soon as liability does. This contract, though entered into by both parties with [advice] of counsel, was drafted by the purchaser, therefore, this ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the plaintiffs. The indemnification called for, then, is not due until after the purchaser has been required to actually pay all attorney's fees in regard to defense of each claim separately."

Citation urges this Court to adopt an exception to the general rule that ambiguities in a contract should be strictly construed against the party who drafted it. The exception provides that where sophisticated, intelligent business persons who are each represented by legal counsel enter into a contract after an arm's-length negotiation wherein all parties have ample opportunity to negotiate all of the contract's terms, the contract's ambiguities should not be strictly construed against the drafter.

Several courts have adopted this proposed exception to the general rule. In E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co. v. Shell Oil Co., 498 A.2d 1108 (Del.1985), the Supreme Court of Delaware stated:

"[T]he justification for applying such [a] rule [of construction against the drafter] pales in a situation, like the instant one, where the terms of an agreement resulted...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Ala. Psychiatric Servs., P.C. v. Lazenby
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 21 d5 Junho d5 2019
    ...policy.... Because this is an adhesion contract, ambiguities are to be construed against the drafter, APS. Western Sling and Cable Co., Inc. v. Hamilton, 545 So. 2d 29, 32 (Ala. 1989) (quoting Joyner v. Adams, 87 N.C.App. 570, 361 S.E.2d 902, 905-906 (1987) )."Second, the Policy's referral ......
  • Beanstalk Group, Inc. v. Am General Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 15 d5 Março d5 2002
    ...with this exception to the principle that contracts are to be construed against the party that drafted it. Western Sling & Cable Co. v. Hamilton, 545 So.2d 29, 31-32 (Ala. 1989); Wood River Pipeline Co. v. Willbros Energy Services Co., 241 Kan. 580, 738 P.2d 866, 872 (1987); Kinney v. Capit......
  • Enniss Family Realty I, LLC v. Schneider Nat'l Carriers, Inc., Civil Action No. 3:11cv739–KS–MTP.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi
    • 2 d3 Janeiro d3 2013
    ...856, 858–59 (7th Cir.2002); Eagle Leasing Corp. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 540 F.2d 1257, 1261 (5th Cir.1976); W. Sling & Cable Co. v. Hamilton, 545 So.2d 29, 31–32 (Ala.1989). 9. ( See Case Management Order [22] at ¶ 7(A), setting this action for a non-jury trial.) 10. It is also highly un......
  • Fabarc Steel v. Composite Const. Systems
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 20 d5 Maio d5 2005
    ...for numerous projects, the rule of contra proferentem should not automatically apply. As this Court observed in Western Sling & Cable Co. v. Hamilton, 545 So.2d 29, 32 (Ala.1989), quoting approvingly from a North Carolina case, the rule of contra proferentem is essentially one of legal effe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT