914 N.W.2d 76
Wis.2018Background
- Becker Property Services (Becker) contracted with Cintas Corp. to provide fire‑suppression inspections; contract included indemnity and Ohio choice‑of‑law provisions.
- A 2013 fire at a property Becker managed caused ~$900,000 damage; plaintiffs sued Cintas for negligent performance and breach of implied warranty.
- Cintas tendered defense to Becker under the contract indemnity clause; Becker refused and Cintas impleaded Becker as a third‑party defendant seeking defense, indemnity, and fees.
- Becker argued Wisconsin law should control because Wisconsin requires conspicuousness and strict construction for indemnities that cover the indemnitee’s own negligence (public‑policy exception to choice‑of‑law).
- The circuit court applied Wisconsin policy and held the indemnity insufficient; the court of appeals reversed; the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals, applying Ohio law and enforcing the indemnity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to enforce parties’ contract choice of Ohio law | Cintas: parties freely chose Ohio law; enforce it | Becker: Wisconsin’s important public policies (strict construction and conspicuousness) bar enforcing Ohio law here | Court: Enforce Ohio choice‑of‑law; Wisconsin’s strict‑construction rule and conspicuousness requirement are not "important public policy" exceptions sufficient to defeat choice clause |
| Whether indemnity covers indemnitee’s own negligence | Cintas: contract language ("any" claims arising from seller’s goods/services; purchaser acknowledges seller has no liability) clearly covers seller’s negligence | Becker: indemnity must be strictly construed and needs explicit language to cover seller's own negligence; contract ambiguous | Court: Indemnity is unambiguous under Ohio law and plainly covers Cintas’s own negligence; duty to defend/indemnify stands |
| Whether contract is ambiguous when read as a whole (guarantee/insurance language vs indemnity) | Cintas: both provisions can coexist; specific indemnity controls; no ambiguity | Becker: bold guarantee/insured language on page 1 conflicts with fine‑print indemnity, creating ambiguity | Court: No ambiguity; terms (notably "any") are broad and coherent; specific provisions control where needed |
| Whether Ohio’s strict‑construction approach prevents enforcement here | Becker: even under Ohio, strict construction should apply to protect weaker party | Cintas: Ohio applies and enforces indemnities unless narrow public‑policy exceptions apply; parties are sophisticated businesses | Court: Even under Ohio’s narrow construction rule, the indemnity clearly expresses intent to cover indemnitee’s own negligence; Becker is a commercial party not entitled to special protection |
Key Cases Cited
- Green Spring Farms v. Kersten, 136 Wis. 2d 304, 401 N.W.2d 816 (procedural standard for summary judgment review)
- Bush v. Nat'l Sch. Studios, Inc., 139 Wis. 2d 635, 407 N.W.2d 883 (public‑policy exception to enforcement of choice‑of‑law clauses)
- Spivey v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 79 Wis. 2d 58, 255 N.W.2d 469 (Wisconsin rule requiring clear expression to indemnify indemnitee for its own negligence)
- Foster Wheeler Enviresponse, Inc. v. Franklin Cty. Convention Facilities Auth., 78 Ohio St.3d 353, 678 N.E.2d 519 (cardinal purpose of contract interpretation: ascertain parties’ intent)
- Glaspell v. Ohio Edison Co., 29 Ohio St.3d 44, 505 N.E.2d 264 (Ohio enforces indemnity agreements except narrow public‑policy exceptions)
- George H. Dingledy Lumber Co. v. Erie R. Co., 102 Ohio St. 236, 131 N.E. 723 (rule that indemnity for indemnitee’s own negligence will not be adopted unless no other meaning can be ascribed)