OPINION
The appellees, herein called “casualty companies,” issued policies of liability insurance insuring The Upson-Walton Company of Cleveland, Ohio, against bodily injury and property damage liability while they were constructing a new factory.
Upson-Walton Company had a contract with The Leonard H. Krill Company, building contractors, for the construction of an office and
The injury tо Holt was caused when a wire with a high voltage of electricity broke and came into contact with him. Holt then sued Upson-Walton Company.
The defense of this suit was tendered to Kilroy by the casualty companies, and Kilroy refused to defend such action. The case of Holt against Upson-Walton was settled by the attorneys for the casualty companies, who took contracts of subrogation in order to proсeed against Kilroy.
The present action was instituted against Kilroy to collect thе sum paid in settlement to Holt, plus the attorney fees paid by the casualty comрanies incident to such settlement.
Kilroy, by way of answer, herein admitted all of the material facts, but denied that they were liable under the terms of the contracts of indemnity.
At a hearing in the Common Pleas Court of Cuyahoga County, the trial judge awarded judgment for the full amount sought by the casualty companies. It is from the judgment so entered that an apрeal on questions of law is before this court.
The judgment entry, in its pertinent part, reads аs follows:
“This matter came on to be heard on the petition'of the plaintiff, the аnswer of defendant, the reply of plaintiff, and facts agreed to between the рarties.”
There is no bill of exceptions herein, and thus we accept the statements set out in the journal entry as having been fully established. We have been favored with аn excellent memorandum by the trial judge, filed in the case on December 5, 1958, severаl weeks before the journal entry of judgment, which was filed for journalization on February 19, 1959.
The controversy herein revolves about the construction of the following portion of the contract of indemnity:
“The subcontractor shall indemnify and save harmless, the owner, the architect, the contractor, and their, respective agents, from аny and all liability, payments and expenses of any nature, for injury or death to any person, or persons, or for damage to any property, caused or allegеd to have been caused by the subcontractor, or incidental to the execution of work under this contract by the subcontractor, his agents or employees * *
It is аdmitted that the subcontract contained an indemnity agreement, the pertinent portion of which is set out above.
The principal point- of controversy conсerns the interpretaion of the above portion of the contract of indemnity, in the light of the long established law involving contracts of indemnity, which rule of interpretation has been determined in the following cases: George H. Dingledy Lumber Co. v. Erie Railroad Co., 102 Oh St 236, and Kay v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 156 Oh St 503.
We are сonvinced that the reasoning adopted in the St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Kopp case, supra, is equally applicable in this case. The contract provisions in thе instant case are almost identical with those interpreted in the Kopp cаse, supra.
We therefore determine that the contract of indemnity herein impоses liability upon Kilroy, notwithstanding that the action brought by Holt was against Upson-Walton Company, the owner of the building being constructed by Krill.
By reason of such determination, the judgment as entered in the trial court must be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.