CC of Baltimore Co. v. Patient First Corp., 98 A.3d 1072

CCBC and Patient First entered an Agreement for Clinical Program - Venipuncture, including a broad indemnification clause for negligent acts by CCBC or its students.
A CCBC student phlebotomist stuck herself and contaminated a needle, drawing blood from a child; the child’s family later sued
Patient First settled part of the Politis suit for $10,000 and sought indemnification and its defense costs from CCBC under §7.1
CCBC refused to indemnify, arguing the contract did not cover Patient First’s own alleged negligence and would violate public policy
The circuit court found CCBC breached by not indemnifying Patient First and awarded $87,097.08 in damages (settlement plus fees)
On appeal, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals reviewed the indemnification scope, burden of proof, and the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CCBC must indemnify for Patient First’s defense costs	Patient First: indemnity applies to negligent acts of CCBC students and related defense costs	CCBC: no indemnification for its own alleged negligence and no clear contract language to cover defense costs	Yes; indemnification applies to Patient First’s defense costs
Who bears the burden to prove the indemnitee’s negligence	Patient First argues CCBC must prove Patient First’s negligence only if expert proof shows breach	CCBC argues the indemnitor need not prove indemnitee’s negligence and that public policy may bar indemnity for own negligence	Indemnitor bears burden to prove indemnitee’s negligence
Whether expert proof was required to show Patient First’s negligence to trigger indemnity	Politis allegations suffice to claim indemnity if supported by evidence of negligence	expert proof is required to establish professional negligence and breach of standard of care	Expert proof was needed to establish Patient First’s negligence; without it, indemnity applied to Ebaugh’s negligence
Whether the trial court properly awarded attorneys’ fees as indemnified costs	Fees were reasonable and were incurred defending the negligence action	Challenge to the reasonableness/competence of testimony supporting the fee award	Yes; the fees were reasonable and properly awarded

Kreter v. Healthstar Communications, Inc., 172 Md. App. 243 (2007) (indemnity against own negligence requires unequivocal language)
Crockett v. Crothers, 264 Md. 222 (1972) (contracts not construed to indemnify for own negligence without express terms)
Heat & Power Corp. v. Air Products & Chemicals, Inc., 320 Md. 584 (1990) (absence of express indemnity against own negligence defeats coverage)
Tesoro Petroleum Corp. v. Nabors Drilling USA, Inc., 106 S.W.3d 118 (Tex. App. 2002) (affirmative defense; indemnity determined by facts, not pleadings)
Norddeutscher Lloyd v. Jones Stevedoring Co., 490 F.2d 648 (9th Cir. 1973) (indemnitor bears burden to prove indemnitee’s negligence)
Schultz v. Bank of America N.A., 413 Md. 15 (2010) (negligence standard requires expert testimony unless obvious)
Zachair Ltd. v. Driggs, 135 Md. App. 403 (2000) (lay opinion on reasonableness of fees admissible; contractual damages standard)