Hooper Associates, Ltd. v. AGS Computers, Inc.

Decision Date21 November 1989
Citation74 N.Y.2d 487,549 N.Y.S.2d 365,548 N.E.2d 903
Parties, 548 N.E.2d 903 HOOPER ASSOCIATES, LTD., Respondent, v. AGS COMPUTERS, INC., Appellant. (And a Third-Party Action.)
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
OPINION OF THE COURT

SIMONS, Judge.

This action is based upon a contract between plaintiff, Hooper Associates, Ltd., and defendant, AGS Computers, Inc., in which Hooper agreed to purchase computer equipment and services from defendant. Plaintiff successfully sued for breach of the contract and the question submitted to us, by leave of the Appellate Division, is whether the contract's indemnity clause entitles plaintiff to recover counsel fees incurred in prosecuting the action against defendant also. We hold that it does not.

In 1977 the parties entered into a written contract whereby defendant agreed to design, install and supply a computer for plaintiff. Three years later plaintiff commenced an action for compensatory and punitive damages claiming breach of contract, breach of express and implied warranties and fraud in the inducement. Plaintiff also asserted an indemnity claim for attorney's fees pursuant to article 9(A) of the contract. 1 At trial the parties agreed to sever the claim for attorney's fees, reserving it for decision by the court after the jury had decided the remaining causes of action.

The jury held for plaintiff but found that it had suffered no damages. On plaintiff's postverdict motion, Supreme Court awarded nominal damages of $1 plus costs on each of the three causes of action. Defendant then moved for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's claim for attorney's fees. Supreme Court denied the motion and, on searching the record, granted summary judgment to plaintiff. The court found that the contract between the parties was "clear and unambiguous in its terms * * * in providing for indemnification of all claims, including reasonable attorney's fees". Consequently, the court found defendant's contention that article 9(A) related only to the defense of a third-party claim against plaintiff to be without merit.

The Appellate Division affirmed, without opinion, 146 A.D.2d 465, 536 N.Y.S.2d 693, with Justice Milonas concurring separately on constraint of Breed, Abbott & Morgan v. Hulko, 139 A.D.2d 71, 531 N.Y.S.2d 240, a decision subsequently affirmed by this court (see, 74 N.Y.2d 686, 543 N.Y.S.2d 373, 541 N.E.2d 402). It granted defendant leave to appeal on the following certified question: "Was the order of the Supreme Court, as affirmed by this Court, properly made?"

Under the general rule, attorney's fees are incidents of litigation and a prevailing party may not collect them from the loser unless an award is authorized by agreement between the parties, statute or court rule (see, Matter of A.G. Ship Maintenance Corp. v. Lezak, 69 N.Y.2d 1, 5, 511 N.Y.S.2d 216, 503 N.E.2d 681; Mighty Midgets v. Centennial Ins. Co., 47 N.Y.2d 12, 21-22, 416 N.Y.S.2d 559, 389 N.E.2d 1080; City of Buffalo v. Clement Co., 28 N.Y.2d 241, 262-263, 321 N.Y.S.2d 345, 269 N.E.2d 895). 2 It is not uncommon, however, for parties to a contract to include a promise by one party to hold the other harmless for a particular loss or damage and counsel fees are but another form of damage which may be indemnified in this way (see, e.g., Breed, Abbott & Morgan v. Hulko, supra; Brooklyn Union Gas Co. v. Shields Detective Bur., 121 A.D.2d 587, 590, 503 N.Y.S.2d 852, appeal denied 69 N.Y.2d 610, 517 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 511 N.E.2d 84; Rosano's Farm Store v. International Collection Serv., 115 A.D.2d 195, 196, 495 N.Y.S.2d 264; Lavorato v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 91 A.D.2d 1184, 1185, 459 N.Y.S.2d 170; see also, Zissu v. Bear, Stearns & Co., 2nd Cir., 805 F.2d 75, 79-80; Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Interstate Oil Transp. Co., 2nd Cir., 784 F.2d 106, 115, cert. denied 479 U.S. 817, 107 S.Ct. 75, 93 L.Ed.2d 31). In the contract before us the parties provided that defendant must indemnify plaintiff for "reasonable counsel fees". They failed to define the scope of defendant's promise, however, and thus, we must interpret the language and determine whether it is limited to attorney's fees incurred by plaintiff in actions involving third parties or also includes those incurred in prosecuting a suit against defendant for claims under the contract.

Words in a contract are to be construed to achieve the apparent purpose of the parties. Although the words might "seem to admit of a larger sense, yet they should be restrained to the particular occasion and to the particular object which the parties had in view" (Robertson v. Ongley Elec. Co., 146 N.Y. 20, 23, 40 N.E. 390). This is particularly true with indemnity contracts. When a party is under no legal duty to indemnify, a contract assuming that obligation must be strictly construed to avoid reading into it a duty which the parties did not intend to be assumed (Levine v. Shell Oil Co., 28 N.Y.2d 205, 211, 321 N.Y.S.2d 81, 269 N.E.2d 799; Kurek v. Port Chester Hous. Auth., 18 N.Y.2d 450, 456, 276 N.Y.S.2d 612, 223 N.E.2d 25). The promise should not be found unless it can be clearly implied from the language and purpose of the entire agreement and the surrounding facts and circumstances (Niagara Frontier Transp. Auth. v. Tri-Delta Constr. Corp., 107 A.D.2d 450, 452, 487 N.Y.S.2d 428, affd. for reasons stated in opn of Justice M. Dolores Denman 65 N.Y.2d 1038, 494 N.Y.S.2d 695, 484 N.E.2d 1047; Margolin v. New York Life Ins. Co., 32 N.Y.2d 149, 153, 344 N.Y.S.2d 336, 297 N.E.2d 80; Inman v. Binghamton Hous. Auth., 3 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 164 N.Y.S.2d 699, 143 N.E.2d 895). Inasmuch as a promise by one party to a contract to indemnify the other for attorney's fees incurred in litigation between them is contrary to the well-understood rule that parties are responsible for their own attorney's fees, the court should not infer a party's intention to waive the benefit of the rule unless the intention to do so is unmistakably clear from the language of the promise (see, Tokyo Tanker Co. v. Etra Shipping Corp., 142 A.D.2d 377, 378, 536 N.Y.S.2d 75; Carr v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn., 132 A.D.2d 513, 514, 517 N.Y.S.2d 256).

The clause in this agreement does not contain language clearly permitting plaintiff to recover from defendant the attorney's fees incurred in a suit against defendant. On the contrary, it is typical of those which contemplate reimbursement when the indemnitee is required to pay damages on a third-party claim. It obligates defendant to "indemnify and hold harmless [plaintiff] * * * from any and all claims, damages, liabilities, costs and expenses, including reasonable counsel fees" arising out of breach of warranty claims, the performance of any service to be performed, the installation, operation and maintenance of the computer system, infringement of patents, copyrights or trademarks and the like. All these subjects are susceptible to third-party claims for failures in the installation or operation of the system. None are exclusively or unequivocally referable to claims between the parties themselves or support an inference that defendant promised to indemnify plaintiff for counsel fees in an action on the contract.

Our interpretation also is supported by other provisions in the contract which unmistakably relate to third-party claims. Thus, article 9(D) requires plaintiff to "promptly notify" defendant of "any claim or litigation to which the indemnity set forth in Sub-Paragraph 9(A) shall apply" and it further provides that defendant "may assume the defense of any such claim or litigation with counsel satisfactory to [plaintiff]." To extend the indemnification clause to require defendant to reimburse plaintiff for attorney's fees in the breach of contract action against defendant would render these provisions meaningless because the requirement of notice and assumption of the defense has no logical application to a suit between the parties. Construing the indemnification clause as pertaining only to third-party suits...

To continue reading

Request your trial
848 cases
  • Nuance Commc'ns, Inc. v. Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • June 21, 2021
    ...Maas v. Cornell Univ., 94 N.Y.2d 87, 699 N.Y.S.2d 716, 721 N.E.2d 966 (1999) ); see also Hooper Assocs., Ltd. v. AGS Computs., Inc., 74 N.Y.2d 487, 549 N.Y.S.2d 365, 548 N.E.2d 903, 905 (1989) ("Words in a contract are to be construed to achieve the apparent purpose of the parties."). When ......
  • Bank Polska Kasa Opieki v. Pamrapo Sav. Bank
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • December 11, 1995
    ...Mighty Midgets v. Centennial Ins. Co., 47 N.Y.2d 12, 416 N.Y.S.2d 559, 389 N.E.2d 1080 (1979); Hooper Associates v. AGS Computers, 74 N.Y.2d 487, 549 N.Y.S.2d 365, 548 N.E.2d 903 (1989). In the absence of a more specific legislative command authorizing the recovery of attorneys' fees, the C......
  • Snohomish Cnty. Pub. Transp. Benefit Area Corp. v. FirstGroup Am., Inc.
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • February 23, 2012
    ...7 N.Y.3d 412, 417, 857 N.E.2d 60, 823 N.Y.S.2d 765 (2006) (citation omitted) (quoting Hooper Assocs., Ltd. v. AGS Computers, Inc., 74 N.Y.2d 487, 491–92, 549 N.Y.S.2d 365, 548 N.E.2d 903 (1989) ). The court held that an indemnification clause in a lease that required indemnification for any......
  • Viking Pump Inc. v. Century Indem. Co. . Warren Pumps Llc.
    • United States
    • Court of Chancery of Delaware
    • October 14, 2009
    ...148 Id., 746 N.Y.S.2d 622, 774 N.E.2d at 695. 149 Id., 746 N.Y.S.2d 622, 774 N.E.2d at 693 (citing Hooper Assoc. v. AGS Computers, 74 N.Y.2d 487, 493, 549 N.Y.S.2d 365, 548 N.E.2d 903 (1989)). 150 Id., 746 N.Y.S.2d 622, 774 N.E.2d at 695. Notably, the Consolidated Edison court explicitly di......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Delaware Supreme Court Holds That Boards May Adopt Fee-Shifting Bylaws
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • June 13, 2014
    ...Transport, Inc. v. Trailer Leasing Co., 730 A.2d 843, 848 (N.J. 1999) (New Jersey law); Hooper Associates, Ltd. v. AGS Computers, Inc., 548 N.E.2d 903, 904 (N.Y. 1989) (New York P>The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice sho......
1 books & journal articles
  • Indemnification Provisions in Commercial Contracts a Drafting Primer
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 49-1, January 2020
    • Invalid date
    ...LLC v. Northrop Grumman Sys. Corp., 242 Cal.App. 4th 1166, 1170 (Cal.App. 2015). See also Hooper Assocs., Ltd. v. AGS Computers, Inc., 74 N.Y.2d 487 (NY. 1989). [5] Id. [6] Id. at 1173. [7] Cyprus Amax Minerals Co. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 74 P.3d 294, 299 (Colo. 2003). [8] Constitution Assoc......

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