W. F. Magann Corp. v. Virginia-Carolina Elec. Works, Inc., VIRGINIA-CAROLINA

Decision Date15 January 1962
Docket NumberVIRGINIA-CAROLINA,No. 5355,5355
Citation123 S.E.2d 377,203 Va. 259
CourtVirginia Supreme Court
PartiesW. F. MAGANN CORPORATION, ET AL. v.ELECTRICAL WORKS, INCORPORATED. Record

John A. MacKenzie (Harvey E. White, Jr.; MacKenzie & Babb; White, Ryan & Reynolds, on brief), for the plaintiffs in error.

William C. Coupland (W. L. Berkley, III; Jett, Sykes & Coupland, on brief), for the defendant in error.

JUDGE: BUCHANAN

BUCHANAN, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

The question to be resolved in this case is whether a subcontractor is liable under its indemnity contract to its general contractor for damage done to the work by the act or neglect of a third party.

W. F. Magann Corporation, the general contractor, now one of the appellants, entered into a contract with Hampton Roads Sanitation District Commission to furnish the materials and perform the labor for constructing a combined sewage pumping station and office building at the corner of Plume and Atlantic streets, in Norfolk. Magann and Royal Indemnity Company, its surety, the other appellant, executed and delivered to the Commission an owner's protective bond, as required by § 11-23 of the 1950 Code.

Virginia-Carolina Electrical Works, Incorporated, the appellee, entered into a contract with Magann in which it agreed, for a consideration of $31,734.69, to furnish, install, test and guarantee all electric power and light conduit, lighting fixtures, underfloor wiring system, wiring, switchgear, controls and accessories for the job, being Item 13 of the general contract, which also provided: 'This Contractor shall install duct and wiring from the existing manhole of the Virginia Electric and Power Company into the building as shown on the drawings.'

Virginia-Carolina in its subcontract with Magann agreed to indemnify Magann and save it harmless from, among other things, 'any and all loss, damage or expense which it may sustain or to which it may be put, by reason of any injury or damage to its property or that of any other person arising out of the performance of this work, or by or on account of any act, omission, or negligence of the subcontractor, its agents, employees, sub-contractors, vendors, materialmen, or any other person having anything whatsoever to do in connection with the work of the sub-contractor.'

After the completion of the work Virginia-Carolina brought this action to recover from Magann and its surety the unpaid balance of the subcontract price, alleged to be $8,364.39.

Magann and its surety filed a special plea setting forth Virginia-Carolina's indemnity agreement and alleging that during the construction flood waters entered the building through conduits installed by Virginia- -Carolina and not properly sealed and protected by it, as a result of which certain electric motors, pumps and equipment were badly damaged. The plea further alleged that Virginia-Carolina accepted responsibility for the damage and authorized Magann to have the damage repaired, which it had done at the cost of $5,808.96. It further alleged that for the delay occasioned by the damage a penalty had been assessed against Magann, of which Virginia-Carolina's pro rata share was $497.37. Magann had, it alleged, deducted the sum of these two items from the balance due Virginia-Carolina on its subcontract and sent Virginia-Carolina a check for $1,723.93 for the balance due it, which Virginia-Carolina still had in its possession.

Magann also filed a counterclaim against Virginia-Carolina asking judgment for $6,306.33, the sum of the two items of repairs and delay, on the ground that they resulted from Virginia-Carolina's negligence. However, the court struck out Magann's evidence on the question of negligence, no error was assigned to that ruling and it need not be further noticed.

The court, without a jury, heard the evidence offered by the parties on the question of liability under the indemnity provision of the contract and held that the indemnity did not cover the damages complained of and that Virginia-Carolina was not chargeable with a pro rata share of the penalty for delay. It entered judgment in favor of Virginia-Carolina against Magann for the $8,364.39 and the case is here on Magann's assignment of error to that ruling.

There is no substantial conflict in the relevant evidence. Virginia-Carolina's work, under its subcontract, included the installation of four steel pipes, called nipples or sleeves, four inches in diameter and about 26 inches long, extending through the Plume street wall of the building at about 3 1/2 feet below the street surface, and so that about 1 1/2 inches of the nipple extended out beyond each side of the wall. As described in Virginia-Carolina's brief:

'* * * The nipples on the outside were to be connected by means of conduits extending from the outside openings into a manhole which was to be installed in the sidewalk area by the Virginia Electric and Power Company. The openings on the inside were to be extended by conduits to a switch gear box when and as the gear box and the manhole were installed, and then electric cables were to be drawn through these conduits and nipples from the manhole to the switch box.'

Virginia-Carolina completed the job of installing these nipples around two months prior to the flooding, which occurred October 5, 1957. It did not make the extension through the nipples into the manhole because, as its manager of the project testified, they had to wait until Virginia Electric and Power...

To continue reading

Request your trial
66 cases
  • In re Capital One Consumer Data Sec. Breach Litig.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • 18 Septiembre 2020
    ...have used," and as such, courts must examine those words to ascertain the parties' intent. W.F. Magann Corp. v. Virginia-Carolina Elec. Works, Inc. , 203 Va. 259, 264, 123 S.E.2d 377 (Va. 1962). Here, the Court must give effect to the words used (and not used) in the Cardholder Agreement. T......
  • Freedlander, Inc. v. NCNB NAT. BANK OF NC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • 10 Agosto 1988
    ...instrument plainly declares.'" Meade v. Wallen, 226 Va. 465, 467, 311 S.E.2d 103, 104 (1984), quoting Magann Corp. v. Electrical Works, 203 Va. 259, 264, 123 S.E.2d 377, 381 (1962). Here, the contract speaks in a clear voice. These provisions were designed to modify the payments Freedlander......
  • United States v. Leebcor Servs.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • 18 Agosto 2022
    ...are bound to say that the parties intended what the written instrument plainly declares." W.F. Magann Corp. v. Virginia-Carolina Elec. Works, Inc., 203 Va. 259, 123 S.E.2d 377, 381 (1962). Therefore, "[w]hen a contract is clear and unambiguous, it is the court's duty to interpret the contra......
  • Arlington Forest Associates v. Exxon Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • 19 Septiembre 1991
    ...are bound to say that the parties intended what the written instrument plainly declares." W.F. Magann Corp. v. Virginia-Carolina Electric Works Inc., 203 Va. 259, 123 S.E.2d 377, 378 (1962). AFA contends that it should be allowed to recover against Exxon under the indemnity provisions of se......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • 4.2 Construction and Interpretation
    • United States
    • Contract Law in Virginia (Virginia CLE) Chapter 4 Determining Contractual Obligations
    • Invalid date
    ...(1995)); Golding v. Floyd, 261 Va. 190, 192, 539 S.E.2d 735, 737 (2001) (quoting W.F. Magann Corp. v. Virginia-Carolina Elec. Works, Inc., 203 Va. 259, 264, 123 S.E.2d 377, 381 (1962)); Barker v. Hutson-Wiley, No. 0740-06-1, 2007 Va. App. LEXIS 112, at *5 (Va. Ct. App. Mar. 20, 2007) (mem.)......
  • 11.7 Lending Agreements
    • United States
    • Contract Law in Virginia (Virginia CLE) Chapter 11 Special Types of Contracts
    • Invalid date
    ...(1984).[1569] Meade v. Wallen, 226 Va. 465, 311 S.E.2d 103 (1984) (citing W.F. Magann Corp. v. Virginia-Carolina Electrical Works, Inc., 203 Va. 259, 264, 123 S.E.2d 377, 381 (1962)).[1570] Va. Code § 11-2(6).[1571] Brown v. Resort Developments, 238 Va. 527, 529, 385 S.E.2d 575, 576 (1989).......
  • 26.4 Interpretation of Subcontracts
    • United States
    • Virginia Construction Law Deskbook (Virginia CLE) Chapter 26 Subcontractors and Suppliers
    • Invalid date
    ...161 S.E.2d at 801-02 (quoting Wunderlich Contracting Co. v. United States, 240 F.2d 201, 205 (10th Cir. 1957) (citations omitted).[187] 203 Va. 259, 123 S.E.2d 377 (1962).[188] Id. at 263-64, 123 S.E.2d at 380-81.[189] 237 Va. 320, 377 S.E.2d 605 (1989).[190] Id. at 324, 377 S.E.2d at 607.[......

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