Snohomish County Public Transportation Benefit Area Corp. v. Firstgroup America, Inc.
271 P.3d 850
Wash.2012Background
- In 2002 Community Transit entered a service contract with Coach USA Transit (First Transit's predecessor) including an indemnity clause barring indemnity for losses sole to Community Transit’s negligence.
- On Feb. 24, 2004 a multiple-vehicle crash on I-5 involved a First Transit bus; CT paid damages and sought indemnification from First Transit.
- CT sued First Transit after First Transit refused to defend or indemnify; both sides moved for summary judgment; accident involved shared fault; CT not sole negligent.
- The contract language excludes indemnity for losses arising solely from CT’s negligence, but contains other language suggesting indemnity for losses tied to the contract work.
- The Washington Supreme Court held the indemnity provision clearly and unequivocally covers losses from CT’s concurrent negligence, reversing lower court rulings and remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the indemnity clause clearly cover concurrent negligence? | Community Transit contends the sole negligence exclusion does not defeat coverage for concurrent fault. | First Transit argues the clause only excludes sole negligence and does not clearly cover concurrent negligence. | Yes; the clause clearly covers concurrent negligence and is enforceable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Northwest Airlines v. Hughes Air Corp., 104 Wash.2d 152 (1985) (indemnity may cover the indemnitee’s own negligence when clearly expressed)
- McDowell v. Austin Co., 105 Wash.2d 48 (1985) (indemnity must be clearly spelled out to cover the indemnitee’s negligence)
- Jones v. Strom Constr. Co., 84 Wash.2d 518 (1974) (strictly construe indemnity to cover indemnitee’s negligence if expressly stated)
- Cope v. J.K. Campbell & Associates, Ltd., 71 Wash.2d 453 (1967) (indemnity for concurrent negligence upheld where sole-negligence exclusion exists)
- Stocker v. Shell Oil Co., 105 Wash.2d 546 (1986) (express indemnity language preferred over borrowed servant doctrine)