CUMcv-21-185
Me. Super. CtMar 15, 2023Background
- EEI (Eastern Excavation, Inc.) employed the plaintiff who was injured at a Sheridan jobsite; plaintiff sued Sheridan for negligence.
- Sheridan filed a third‑party complaint against EEI alleging EEI's negligence and that Sheridan is entitled to contractual indemnity from EEI for any liability to the injured employee.
- The EEI–Sheridan subcontract contains a broad indemnity requiring Subcontractor to indemnify Sheridan for claims "arising out of" performance, including bodily injury, and states the indemnity "shall not be limited by any limitation on the amount or type of damages, compensation, benefits payable by or for subcontractor under Workers' Compensation Acts."
- EEI moved for summary judgment arguing the indemnity clause does not effect a waiver of EEI's statutory immunity under the Maine Workers' Compensation Act.
- The court applied Maine law requiring a "clear and specific" contractual waiver of workers' compensation immunity and compared the clause to prior decisions.
- The court granted EEI's motion, concluding the subcontract language did not clearly and specifically waive EEI's workers' compensation immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the subcontract's indemnity clause clearly and specifically waived EEI's workers' compensation immunity | Sheridan: Broad indemnity covering bodily injury and the clause saying indemnity "shall not be limited by" workers' compensation benefit limitations shows waiver | EEI: Clause lacks the required clear/specific language (no explicit reference to claims by EEI's employees or assumption of liability for employee suits); the "not be limited by any limitation on the amount or type" phrase is ambiguous | Court: No. The clause does not clearly and specifically waive immunity; summary judgment for EEI |
Key Cases Cited
- Diamond Int'l Corp. v. Sullivan & Merritt, Inc., 493 A.2d 1043 (Me. 1985) (contractual waiver of workers' compensation immunity must be clear and specific)
- Fowler v. Boise Cascade Corp., 948 F.2d 49 (1st Cir. 1991) (waivers strictly construed; absence of specific waiver language defeats claim of waiver)
- Gatley v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 662 F. Supp. 200 (D. Me. 1987) (found waiver where contract expressly referenced contractor employees and excluded limitation by workers' compensation)
- Int'l Paper Co. v. A & A Brochu, 899 F. Supp. 715 (D. Me. 1995) (held broad indemnity language can support waiver; court here found it unpersuasive)
- Corey v. Norman, Hanson & DeTroy, 742 A.2d 933 (Me. 1999) (summary judgment opposition evidentiary standard)