Harvey Mach. Co. v. Hatzel & Buehler, Inc.

• Citation: 6 Cal.Rptr. 284,353 P.2d 924,54 Cal.2d 445
• Court: United States State Supreme Court (California)
• Decision Date: 08 July 1960
• Parties: , 353 P.2d 924 HARVEY MACHINE CO., Inc. (a Corporation) et al., Respondents, v. HATZEL & BUEHLER, INC. (a Corporation) et al., Appellants. L. A. 25375.

Page 284

6 Cal.Rptr. 284

54 Cal.2d 445, 353 P.2d 924

HARVEY MACHINE CO., Inc. (a Corporation) et al., Respondents, v. HATZEL & BUEHLER, INC. (a Corporation) et al., Appellants.

L. A. 25375.

Supreme Court of California, In Bank.

July 8, 1960.

Crider, Tilson & Ruppe, Garvin F. Shallenberger and Abe Mutchnik, Los Angeles, for appellants.

Ball, Hunt & Hart and Clark R. Heggeness, Long Beach, for respondents.

WHITE, Justice.

The defendants, construction contractors, appeal from a judgment declaring that they are obligated to indemnify the plaintiffs by virtue of a hold harmless and indemnification clause contained in an agreement whereby the defendants, with other contractors, undertook to construct a new industrial plant in its entirety for the plaintiff Harvey Machine Co., Inc. The plaintiff Pacific Indemnity Company is Harvey's insurer against 'liability imposed by law.'

The cause as framed by the pleadings was submitted to the trial court on an agreed statement of facts. It appears therefrom that, pursuant to the terms of a written agreement, the defendants undertook to make certain electrical installations in Harvey's plant then under construction. While the defendants and other construction contractors were thus engaged, Sam Mann, an employee of the defendants while engaged in his duties on the premises, fell into an open elevator pit. The pit and elevator comprised a part of the overall installation on which Mann was employed. He sustained injuries for which he recovered a workmen's compensation award pursuant to his status as an employee of the defendants. He thereafter commenced an action against Harvey as an alleged tort feasor, in which he seeks to recover $75,000 general damages and other unspecified sums for loss of earnings and medical expenses incurred as a result of his fall.

Harvey, upon commencement of the action by Mann, made demand on the defendants to defend the action under the aforesaid hold harmless and indemnity provisions of the agreement. The defendants refused on the ground, apparently that those provisions do not provide protection for the indemnitee against its own acts of negligence. This action in declaratory relief was then commenced for a declaration that the defendants are required to indemnify and hold the plaintiffs harmless from Mann's claims. By its judgment the trial court declared that the defendants were 'to pay any and all costs and expenses of' Harvey in the Mann action, 'and any judgment that may be rendered against' Harvey in that action. It may be assumed for purposes of this proceeding that Mann's fall into the pit was a consequence of some breach of duty owed to Mann on the part of Harvey.

The particular provisions of the agreement with which we are concerned read as follows:

'Accident Prevention:

'(a) In order to provide safety controls for protection of the life and health of employees and other persons; for prevention of damage or property, materials, supplies and equipment; and for avoidance of work interruptions in the performance of this contract; the * * * [defendants] shall comply with all pertinent provisions and Safety Requirements of Federal and State Laws building codes and regulations in effect during the course of the work, and will also take or cause to be taken such additional measures as * * * [Harvey] may determine to be reasonably necessary for the purpose.

'(b) [Defendants agree] * * * to indemnify and hold harmless Harvey Machine Co., Inc., and its officers and employees, against liability, including all costs and expenses, for bodily or personal injuries including death at any time resulting therefrom, sustained by any person or persons including employees of * * * [defendants], and arising from the use of the premises, facilities or services of Harvey Machine Co., Inc., its officers or employees.

'(c) Compliance with the provisions of this Article by Subcontractors will be the responsibility of the * * * [defendants].

'Insurance:

'[Defendants] * * * shall obtain at * * * [their] own expense adequate Workmen's Compensation Insurance, Contractor's Public Liability Insurance, and Automobile Liability Insurance, and have satisfactory proof of same on file with Harvey Machine Co., Inc.'

The question in the present case, as in Vinnell Co. v. Pacific Elec. Ry. Co., 52 Cal.2d 411, 340 P.2d 604, is whether such an indemnity clause operates to exculpate the indemnitee from the consequences of its own breach of duty where the clause does not expressly state that the damage so caused is intended to be included in the coverage of the clause. The question is one of interpretation of contracts. If it...