Barrons v. J. H. Findorff & Sons, Inc.
Decision Date | 30 May 1979 |
Docket Number | No. 76-666,76-666 |
Citation | 89 Wis.2d 444,278 N.W.2d 827 |
Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Parties | Thomas E. BARRONS and Travelers Indemnity Company, Plaintiffs, v. J. H. FINDORFF & SONS, INC., and Badger Cordage Mills, Inc., Defendants, United States Steel Corporation, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant, Reinke & Schomann, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. |
United States Steel Corporation, third-party defendant-appellant, appeals from a judgment dismissing its third-party complaint against Reinke & Schomann, Inc., third-party defendant-respondent, and from an order denying its motion for reconsideration or a new trial.
Gilbert W. Church, Robert L. Binder (argued), Milwaukee, for third-party defendant-appellant; Foley & Lardner, Milwaukee, on the brief.
William P. Croke (argued), for third-party defendant-respondent; John E. Feldbruegge, Terrence C. Thom and Prosser, Wiedabach & Quale, S. C., Milwaukee, on the brief.
This case arose as a result of an accident in which Thomas E. Barrons, an employee of Merle A. Patnode Company, a subcontractor of Reinke & Schomann, Inc., was injured while working on a construction project. The action of Barrons for damages for personal injuries he sustained has been settled and therefore is not involved in this appeal.
The appeal concerns the general contractor, three subcontractors and two indemnity agreements. The parties to the appeal are two of the subcontractors, United States Steel Corporation, third-party defendant and appellant, and Reinke & Schomann, Inc., third-party defendant and respondent.
J. H. Findorff & Sons, Inc., as general contractor for the construction of an office building in Madison, Wisconsin, subcontracted specialty steel work to the United States Steel Corporation. United States Steel furnished the steel but subcontracted the work to Reinke & Schomann, Inc. Reinke & Schomann subcontracted the caulking work to the Merle A. Patnode Co. The plaintiff in the original action was Thomas E. Barrons, an employee of Patnode.
Barrons was injured when a rope which held the scaffold on which he was working broke. He was not wearing a safety belt or line as required by the Department of Industry, Labor & Human Relations rules. In addition, the rope in question had been damaged by acid used to wash down the building walls because splash guards, also required by ILHR Department rules, had not been used. As a result of the fall Barrons was totally disabled and became a paraplegic. Following his workmen's compensation award Barrons brought an action against the rope manufacturer and against Findorff for common-law negligence and safe-place statute violations. 1
Findorff had an indemnity agreement with its subcontractor, United States Steel Corporation, and commenced a third-party action against United States Steel seeking indemnification under its contract. United States Steel also had an indemnity agreement with its subcontractor, Reinke & Schomann, Inc. Therefore, United States Steel tendered the defense of the third-party action Findorff had commenced against it to Reinke & Schomann, Inc., whose insurer rejected the tender. Upon refusal of the tender, United States Steel proceeded to defend the action but kept Reinke & Schomann and its insurer fully advised of all proceedings and settlement negotiations in the principal action.
Findorff, United States Steel and the rope manufacturer ultimately settled with Barrons for $160,000. Findorff and United States Steel each paid $75,000 and the rope manufacturer paid $10,000.
United States Steel then proceeded with its indemnity claim by impleading Reinke & Schomann, Inc., and this action is the subject matter of this appeal. The case was submitted to the trial court on a stipulated statement of issues and facts.
The trial court found that the settlement was reasonable and that the indemnity agreement between United States Steel and Reinke & Schomann would cover attorney's fees. The trial court also found that because United States Steel had tendered the defense to Reinke & Schomann and had offered the settlement for its approval, United States Steel had only to show potential, not actual, liability to prove a right to indemnity. However, the trial court concluded that United States Steel had not shown potential liability because, as stipulated, United States Steel was not itself negligent and, under the terms of its contract with Findorff, it could not be required to indemnify Findorff for Findorff's own negligence. The trial court concluded that United States Steel had made the settlement as a volunteer because United States Steel was not negligent and was not liable for the negligence of Findorff and therefore that Reinke & Schomann, Inc., could not be required to indemnify United States Steel. The trial court dismissed the third-party complaint of United States Steel, and this appeal follows.
The parties to this appeal raise a number of issues and each frame the issues in different language. We have considered all the issues presented and conclude the dispositive issue is whether Reinke & Schomann, Inc., is required by the terms of its indemnity agreement with United States Steel to indemnify United States Steel for the $75,000 it contributed to the settlement of the action commenced by Barrons.
The answer to this question depends upon whether, under the terms of the indemnity agreements, United States Steel would have been required to indemnify Findorff for any judgment against Findorff in favor of Barrons.
The contract of indemnity between Findorff and United States Steel contained the following provision:
This contract was incorporated by reference into the contract between United States Steel and Reinke & Schomann, Inc.:
The contract between United States Steel and Reinke & Schomann, Inc., also contained the following indemnity provision:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tatera v. Fmc Corp.
...act for purposes of establishing liability also were construction or utility-not chattel-cases. See, e.g., Barrons v. J.H. Findorff & Sons, Inc., 89 Wis.2d 444, 278 N.W.2d 827 (1979) (construction Snider v. N. States Power Co., 81 Wis.2d 224, 260 N.W.2d 260 (1977) (utility case). 4. Well, a......
-
Estate of Kriefall v. Sizzler USA Franchise, Inc.
...(1992). Instead, the duty to defend arises when potential liability is asserted against the indemnitee. Barrons v. J.H. Findorff & Sons, Inc., 89 Wis.2d 444, 455, 278 N.W.2d 827 (1979). Indemnitors who deny their responsibility after tender of a potential suit or liability “cannot subsequen......
-
Hicks v. Nunnery
...factor in bringing about the harm it is a legal cause of that harm.") (internal quotations omitted); Barrons v. J.H. Findorff & Sons, Inc., 89 Wis. 2d 444, 459, 278 N.W.2d 827 (1979) ("This court, in reaffirming the substantial-factor test in determining legal cause, . . . .") (internal quo......
-
Shea v. Bay State Gas Co.
...270 Mass. 140, 155, 169 N.E. 897 (1930); Stern v. Larocca, 49 N.J.Super. 496, 506, 140 A.2d 403 (1958); Barrons v. J. H. Findorff & Sons, 89 Wis.2d 444, 453-454, 278 N.W.2d 827 (1979). See also McMahon v. Monarch Life Ins. Co., 345 Mass. 261, 264, 186 N.E.2d 827 (1962); Berger v. Siegel, 32......