25 Pa. D. & C.5th 97
Pennsylvania Court of Common P...2011Background
- Pringle, employed by Friendship House, fell on May 7, 2002 in a stairwell at the Gordon Building while descending from the ground to the second floor.
- Friendship House leased the second floor from Keymall; Keymall joined as an additional defendant seeking indemnity.
- Section 12.05 of the Keymall–Friendship House lease contains an indemnity clause for third‑party claims arising from the tenant’s control of the demised premises.
- Keymall contends Friendship House performed maintenance on the stairs, and that the stairwell may be part of the demised premises; the indemnity clause should cover the claim.
- The court granted summary judgment for Friendship House, concluding §12.05 lacks explicit language waiving the employer’s immunity for claims by the lessee’s employees, and that general indemnity language is insufficient under Pennsylvania law; the decision rests on the Workers’ Compensation Act immunity and the need for express indemnity language.
- The judgment directs entry of judgment in favor of Friendship House against Keymall on the contractual indemnity claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §12.05 expressly waives employer immunity for employee injuries. | Keymall argues the lease language covers all third‑party claims, including employee injuries. | Friendship House argues §12.05 is not explicit enough to waive immunity for its own employees. | Yes; §12.05 is not explicit enough to indemnify against employee claims. |
| Whether the stairwell is part of the demised premises for purposes of indemnity. | Keymall asserts the maintenance by Friendship House shows the stairwell is within the demised premises. | Friendship House argues the stairwell is outside the demised premises and not indemnified. | Stairwell not shown to be within the demised premises for indemnity purposes; no coverage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Integrated Project Services v. HMS Interiors, Inc., 931 A.2d 724 (Pa. Super. 2007) (express waiver required; broad terms insufficient to defeat immunity)
- Bester v. Essex Crane Rental Corp., 422 Pa. Super. 178 (Pa. Super. 1993) (indemnity must be express and specific to employee injuries; language must forego immunity)
- Shumosky v. Lutheran Welfare Services of Northeastern PA. Inc., 784 A.2d 196 (Pa. Super. 2001) (general indemnity language insufficient to remove statutory immunity)
- Snare v. Ebensburg Power Company, 431 Pa. Super. 515 (Pa. Super. 1993) (indemnity provision must be clear and unequivocal to cover employee claims)
- Morgan v. Harnischfeger Corp., 791 A.2d 1273 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (express indemnity required to defeat workers’ compensation immunity; strict construction)
- Parilla v. United States, 2007 WL 2032903 (E.D. Pa. 2007) (Pennsylvania precedents reject blanket indemnity provisions; require express terms)