Oltmans Construction Co. v. Bayside Interiors, Inc.
10 Cal. App. 5th 355
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Oltmans Construction (general contractor) sued subcontractor Bayside Interiors after an employee of a sub‑subcontractor (O’Donnell) fell through a partially cut skylight and was injured; Oltmans was a defendant in the employee’s underlying suit.
- The subcontract required Bayside to indemnify and defend Oltmans for claims arising out of Bayside’s scope of work “except to the extent the claims arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the active negligence or willful misconduct of the contractor parties,” and to obtain identical indemnities from its sub‑subcontractors.
- Facts: Oltmans’ employee had temporarily covered the skylight opening with a 25‑lb wooden curb that was not fastened; Escobar (O’Donnell employee) climbed the roof without fall protection and fell through the opening.
- Bayside moved for summary judgment, arguing Oltmans’ active negligence barred any indemnity under the subcontract and Civil Code § 2782.05; the trial court granted summary judgment for Bayside.
- On appeal the Court of Appeal held the subcontract’s “except to the extent” language and § 2782.05 permit comparative‑fault indemnity — indemnity is barred only for the portion of liability attributable to the indemnitee’s own active negligence or willful misconduct — and concluded summary judgment was erroneously granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does subcontract language barring indemnity “to the extent” of the general contractor’s active negligence bar all indemnity if GC was actively negligent? | Oltmans: "to the extent" means bar only that portion of liability caused by Oltmans; indemnitor remains liable for others’ fault. | Bayside: Active negligence by Oltmans precludes any indemnity under a general indemnity rule and §2782.05. | Court: “To the extent” limits indemnity only for the portion attributable to Oltmans’ active negligence; comparative indemnity applies. |
| Does Civil Code § 2782.05 require denying indemnity entirely when GC is actively negligent? | Oltmans: §2782.05 implements comparative‑fault apportionment and supports partial indemnity. | Bayside: §2782.05 voids indemnity for claims that arise out of GC’s active negligence, precluding recovery. | Court: §2782.05 and legislative history favor proportionate liability; it does not mandate complete denial when multiple parties share fault. |
| Whether Bayside met its summary‑judgment burden to show Oltmans was actively negligent as a matter of law | Oltmans: factual dispute exists whether Oltmans’ measures were unreasonable. | Bayside: Oltmans left an unsecured skylight and failed to warn—shows active negligence. | Court: Bayside’s evidence may be insufficient to establish active negligence as a matter of law; summary judgment on that basis was improper. |
| Whether Bayside breached subcontract by failing to obtain required insurance / additional‑insured coverage | Oltmans: Bayside failed to secure insurance obligations, and Bayside produced no evidence negating that claim. | Bayside: Did not address the insurance breach claim in its motion. | Court: Bayside failed to negate the insurance‑breach allegation; summary judgment improper on that ground. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rossmoor Sanitation, Inc. v. Pylon, Inc., 13 Cal.3d 622 (explains active/passive negligence in indemnity and emphasizes contractual intent)
- McCrary Constr. Co. v. Metal Deck Specialists, Inc., 133 Cal.App.4th 1528 (discusses classification of indemnity clauses; did not require denying comparative indemnity)
- Morton Thiokol, Inc. v. Metal Building Alteration Co., 193 Cal.App.3d 1025 (permits indemnity consistent with parties’ intent even where indemnitee was actively negligent)
- Hernandez v. Badger Constr. Equip. Co., 28 Cal.App.4th 1791 (holds indemnitee may receive indemnity for portion of liability attributable to indemnitor despite indemnitee’s active negligence)
- Maryland Cas. Co. v. Bailey & Sons, Inc., 35 Cal.App.4th 856 (cautions Hernandez is not blanket rule; active/passive analysis remains a tool to determine parties’ intent)
- MacDonald & Kruse, Inc. v. San Jose Steel Co., 29 Cal.App.3d 413 (describes earlier classification scheme for indemnity clauses)