Schumacher v. Lutheran Community Services, Inc.Schumacher v. Lutheran Community Services, Inc.
In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Mount Tremper Lutheran Camp, Inc., appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Delaney, J.), dated June 14, 1989, which, inter alia, granted the motion of the defendant Lutheran Community Services, Inc., for summary judgment on its cross claims against Mount Tremper Lutheran Camp, Inc., on the basis of contractual indemnification, and (2) a judgment of the same court entered February 20, 1990, directing Mount Tremper Lutheran Camp, Inc., to indemnify Lutheran Community Services, Inc., and the plaintiffs cross-appeal, on the ground of inadequacy, from so much of the judgment as, after a nonjury trial, is in their favor and against the defendants in the sum of $137,414.
Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that the defendant Lutheran Community Services., Inc., is awarded one bill of costs payable by the plaintiffs and
The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of a judgment in the action (see, Matter of Aho,
The plaintiff Joyce Schumacher sustained personal injuries when she fell through a step in a cabin located on premises leased by the defendant Mount Tremper Lutheran Camp, Inc. (hereinafter the Camp) from the defendant Lutheran Community Services, Inc. (hereinafter Lutheran). The lease included a covenant whereby the Camp promised to indemnify and hold harmless Lutheran for "any and all claims” for loss or damages. The covenant further required the Camp to obtain insurance coverage in specific amounts and to name Lutheran as the coinsured. The Camp obtained the insurance, but failed to name Lutheran on the policy.
After the plaintiffs commenced the instant action, Lutheran moved for summary judgment on its cross claim against the Camp for indemnification. The Supreme Court granted Lutheran’s motion and this appeal ensued.
On appeal, the Camp claims that the indemnification clause is violative of General Obligations Law § 5-321. We disagree. This section provides that an agreement to exempt a lessor from liability for its own negligence is void as against public policy. However, where, as here, sophisticated parties have negotiated at arm’s length, an indemnification clause is enforceable against the parties to the agreement, because they have allocated the risk of liability to third parties by requiring one party to obtain insurance for their mutual benefit (see, Hogeland v Sibley, Lindsay & Curr Co.,
Further, we see no basis to increase the damages awarded to the plaintiff Joyce Schumacher for her pain and suffering