The case involves W. R. Hall, Inc. appealing a ruling regarding the validity of two indemnification provisions in a construction contract with the Hampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD). The primary legal question is whether these provisions, which require W. R. Hall to reimburse HRSD for costs incurred in defending against a third-party personal injury claim, are void due to public policy considerations.
The facts indicate that W. R. Hall was contracted to install sewer lines in Norfolk, including one that crossed railroad tracks owned by the Norfolk and Portsmouth Belt Line Railroad Company. HRSD had a prior utility line agreement with Belt Line that included an indemnity clause, obligating HRSD to defend and indemnify Belt Line against claims arising from the sewer line installation.
On December 8, 2003, an employee of W. R. Hall, Joshua G. Collins, was injured while attempting to cross the tracks. Collins subsequently filed a negligence lawsuit against Belt Line, prompting HRSD to assume the defense and seek reimbursement for associated costs from W. R. Hall based on two indemnification provisions in their contract.
One of the provisions, detailed in Article 6.16 of the contract, requires W. R. Hall to take full responsibility for any damage resulting from the work performed and to indemnify HRSD against claims arising from W. R. Hall's actions. The appeal centers on the enforceability of these indemnification provisions in light of public policy.
Article 6.31 of the contract mandates that W. R. Hall indemnify HRSD for all claims, costs, losses, and damages resulting from work-related bodily injury, sickness, disease, or death attributable to any negligent act or omission by W. R. Hall or its affiliates, regardless of shared negligence. After W. R. Hall declined HRSD's indemnity request, HRSD sought a declaratory judgment in trial court, asserting that W. R. Hall was obligated to indemnify it for expenses related to Collins' lawsuit. W. R. Hall contended that the contract's indemnity provisions were inapplicable and void against public policy concerning personal injuries, citing relevant case law (Johnson v. Richmond, Danville R.R. Co. and Hiett v. Lake Barcroft Community Ass’n). The trial court held a hearing and concluded that the indemnity provisions were applicable and not void, ordering W. R. Hall to indemnify HRSD for all expenses from Collins' suit on January 12, 2006. W. R. Hall appealed, arguing the trial court erred in determining the provisions were not contrary to public policy concerning future negligence-related bodily injury claims. The discussion refers to a recent case, Estes Express Lines, Inc. v. Chopper Express, Inc., which found similar indemnity provisions enforceable against public policy arguments.
Indemnity provisions do not prevent an injured party from recovering damages from a tortfeasor, and it is unlikely that such provisions would lead to a lack of ordinary care. Therefore, these provisions do not raise the same public policy concerns as pre-injury release provisions highlighted in Johnson and Hiett. The case of Estes establishes that a party can enforce a contractual indemnity for losses resulting from its own future negligence without violating public policy. W. R. Hall's argument against indemnity for losses unrelated to its own negligence is rejected, as it creates an inconsistent stance compared to the ruling in Estes.
Article 6.16 of the contract between W. R. Hall and HRSD, which requires W. R. Hall to indemnify HRSD for losses related to damages on Belt Line’s property, is valid because W. R. Hall was responsible for construction work and could prevent such damages. Collins' lawsuit against Belt Line triggered HRSD's need for indemnity, leading to W. R. Hall being sought for indemnity regarding defense costs. Article 6.31, which holds W. R. Hall responsible for losses due to its own negligence, also aligns with public policy by placing the burden for personal injury on the negligent party. The trial court's conclusion that the indemnity provisions in Articles 6.16 and 6.31 are enforceable and not against public policy is affirmed.
