OPINION OF THE COURT
An indemnification agreement will not be read to impose obligations upon the indemnitor which are neither disclosed at the time of its execution nor reasonably within the scope of its terms and the over-all intendment of the parties at the time of its making.
Plaintiff-appellant, Tokyo Tanker Company Limitеd (Tokyo Tanker), commenced this action by summons and complaint dated November 19, 1986, seeking a declaratory judgment that certain fees and exрenses claimed by defendants-respondents, Etra Shipping Corporation, Norop Tankers Corporation, Globtik Tankers London Limited and Globtik Tankers Limited (collectively the Globtik Companies), were not recoverable under the indemnity provisions of an agreement dated October 23, 1985 (the Tanker Agreement) entered into by Tokyo Tanker and the Globtik Companies.
Pursuant to the Tanker Agreement, Tokyo Tanker, a Japanese corporatiоn and the bareboat charterer of the Globtik London and the Globtik Tokyo, two oceangoing supertankers owned by the Globtik Companies, agreed to act as agent to sеll the tankers and to indemnify the Globtik Companies, as well as assume certain costs in connection with the sales, as follows:
"Section 3. sale of the vessels * * *
"(c) Tokyo Tanker hereby аgrees to indemnify, save and hold harmless each of the Globtik Companies from and against any and all loss, claims, damages or expenses, including cоmmissions of brokers and others and legal fees and disbursements, that any Globtik Company shall sustain or become liable or answerable for, or shall pay, in аny way resulting from, caused by or as a consequence of a Sale or contemplated Sale of a Vessel * * *
"(d) Tokyo Tanker shall pay all сosts, fees and expenses incurred by any of the Globtik Companies relating to, in connection with or arising out of any Sale or contemplated
Under a separate, preexisting contrаct dated September 27, 1985 (the Morgan Agreement), entered into by the Globtik Companies and Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York (the bank), a $3 million cash dеposit held by the bank as collateral for loans advanced to the Globtik Companies would be released. In return therefor, the Globtik Companies agreed to an increase in the interest rate on their loans and, in addition, to pay the bank a commission on the sales of the two supertankers, if they occurred before 1993.
On November 26, 1985, the Globtik London was sold for $7,052,049, and on February 21, 1986, the Globtik Tokyo was sold for $7,922,135. Several months later, on September 23, 1986, the Globtik Companies advised Tokyo Tanker that, pursuant to sections 3.1 (c) and (d) of the Tanker Agreement, it was claiming the following sums: $1,312,000 paid by the Globtik Companies to the bank as a fee under the Morgan Agreement,
In addition, the Globtik Companies claimed legal fees and disbursements totaling approximately $26,800 incurred in the actual sale of the supertankers. Tokyo Tanker requested documentation regarding these latter fees. It refused, however, to make payment on any claims arising оut of the Morgan Agreement and, on November 19, 1986, commenced this action for a declaration of no liability with respect thereto.
Following the Globtik Companies’ motion for summary judgment based upon sections 3.1 (c) and (d) of the Tanker Agreement, Tokyo Tanker cross-moved for partial summary judgment declaring that it had no liability for the fees and expenses incurred under the Morgan Agreement. Special Term determined that Tokyo Tanker had "clearly аnd unequivocally” assumed liability for the fees and expenses in
Tokyo Tanker was neither aware of, nor involved in, the Globtik Companies’ debt to thе bank or the fee obligation which the Globtik Companies assumed one month prior to Tokyo Tanker’s entering into the Tanker Agreement. As aptly stated in Niagara Frontier Transp. Auth. v Tri-Delta Constr. Corp. (
Significantly, the Morgan Agreement was stamped "strictly confidentiаl”, and the Globtik Companies do not refute Tokyo Tanker’s assertion that it was never shown a copy. In light of all of these circumstances, the words cоmprising sections 3.1 (c) and (d) of the Tanker Agreement "may not reasonably be read to place upon [Tokyo Tanker] a burden which [it] did not expressly assume and which it is inconceivable [it] would have
Accordingly, the order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eugene Nardelli, J.), entered, pursuant to CPLR 9002, on February 22, 1988, in acсordance with a decision of said court (Alvin Klein, J.), dated December 8, 1987, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiffs cross motion for рartial summary judgment, should be reversed, on the law, plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment granted, and a declaration of no liability on plaintiffs part entered with respect to defendants’ obligations to the Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York and its counsel, Lord, Day & Lord, arising from an agreement dated September 27, 1985 between defendants and said bank, without costs.
Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Ellerin and Smith, JJ., concur.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on February 22, 1988, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs аnd without disbursements, plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment granted, and a declaration of no liability on plaintiffs part entered with respect to defendants’ obligations to the Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York and its counsel, Lord, Day & Lord, arising from an agreement dated September 27,1985 between defendants and said bank.
Notes
This claim was later reduced to $748,074.