Wells Dairy, Inc. v. American Industrial Refrigeration, Inc.
762 N.W.2d 463 | Supreme Court of Iowa | 2009
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
Wells Dairy sued refrigeration contractors after an ammonia system failure caused an explosion that shut down its ice cream plant and prevented it from fulfilling a contract with Pillsbury. The Iowa Supreme Court ruled that implied indemnity (where one party must cover another's losses) requires more than just a routine service contract—there must be independent duties involved. However, the court also found that equitable indemnity can apply based on professional engineering duties even without a written indemnification clause. The case was sent back to the lower court to determine if the contractors had such professional duties.
Key Takeaways
- •Don't assume you're protected from indemnity claims just because you have a service contract without an indemnification clause—courts may impose indemnity based on your professional duties and expertise.
- •Indemnity is about shifting risk; if you're hired for specialized work (like engineering or design), courts may hold you responsible for losses even without express language saying so.
- •Get clear, written indemnification agreements that spell out exactly what you will and won't cover—vague or missing clauses invite litigation and unfavorable court interpretations.
Indemnity is, in short, a redistribution of risk.
Frequently Asked Question
Can I be forced to pay for someone else's losses if my contract doesn't have an indemnification clause?
Yes, possibly. Courts can impose indemnity based on your professional duties and expertise, even without a written clause. If you're hired for specialized work like engineering or design, a court may decide you must cover losses from your work. Always get a clear, written indemnification agreement that spells out what you will and won't cover.
Related Cases
Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Systems, Inc.
A manufacturer must indemnify an innocent seller for products liability litigation costs under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.002(a), even if the seller did not sell the particular defective product that injured the plaintiff, provided the seller qualifies as a 'seller' under the statute.
Associated Indemnity Corp. v. CAT Contracting, Inc.
A surety does not owe a common law duty of good faith to its principal, but good faith is a contractual condition precedent to indemnification, requiring proof of improper motive or willful ignorance rather than mere negligence.
Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers
A premises owner that contracts for work performance and provides workers' compensation insurance to contractors' employees qualifies as a statutory employer entitled to the exclusive remedy defense under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act.
Gould Electronics Inc., F/k/a Gould Inc. American Premier Underwriters, Inc. v. United States of America Gould Electronics Inc. American Premier Underwriters, Inc.
Under the FTCA, Ohio law governs the jurisdictional inquiry for contribution and indemnity claims arising from a toxic tort settlement, and the United States would be liable for contribution but not indemnity under Ohio law.
Gilbert Texas Construction, L.P. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's London
A CGL policy's contractual liability exclusion bars coverage for breach of contract claims when the insured's only liability arises from contractual obligations assumed in the underlying contract, and the insured-contract exception does not restore coverage.
The Burlington Insurance Company v. NYC Transit Authority
An insurance policy's additional insured endorsement covering injuries "caused, in whole or in part" by the named insured's acts requires proximate causation, not mere "but for" causation, and does not cover injuries caused solely by the additional insured's negligence.