Arthur Pew Construction Company, Inc. v. Bryan Construction Company, Inc.

ARTHUR PEW CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. v. BRYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. Et Al.

Arthur Pew Constr. Co. v. Bryan Constr. Co., 275 S.E.2d 384 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980)

Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia · State Appellate Courts
Decided: November 26, 1980
Docket: No. 59645
Judges: Smith, McMurray, Banke
Citations: 275 S.E.2d 384156 Ga. App. 7801980 Ga. App. LEXIS 3199

Cited by 3 1 descriptions by later courts

Opinion — Smith

Smith, Judge.

Appellant general contractor was named as defendant in a wrongful death action. Appellant (hereinafter “Pew”) then brought a third-party complaint against appellee subcontractor (hereinafter “Bryan”) asserting a contractual right of indemnity against Bryan for the claim filed against Pew. In the previous appearance of this case, this court held that the language of the subject indemnity clause was sufficient to require Bryan to indemnify Pew.

Arthur Pew Const. Co. v. Bryan Const. Co., 148 Ga. App. 114 ( 251 SE2d 105 ) (1978). The issue raised by this appeal is whether the contract requires Bryan to completely indemnify Pew for a wrongful death claim arising from the parties’ concurrent negligence. The trial court granted Bryan’s motion for summary judgment, finding that if a “ [jury] finds that the concurrent negligence of both Bryan and Pew proximately caused injuries to Plaintiff, and if the [j]ury awards the Plaintiff damages for such injuries, the total damage award shall be assessed against Bryan and Pew on a comparative negligence basis; that is, based upon the percentage that the negligence of each caused or contributed to the damages.” We reverse.

The pertinent portions of the indemnification clause are as follows: “[Bryan] shall agree to hold [Pew], its officers, agents, and employees harmless from any and all claims made against [Pew], its officers, agents, and employees, which arise out of the action or *781 omission of [Bryan]... and any and all claims which result from any condition created or maintained by [Bryan], which condition was not specified to be created or maintained by the contract.”

Argued April 15, 1980 Decided November 26, 1980 Rehearing denied December 10, 1980 Stevan A. Miller, W. Wray Eckl, for appellant.

K. Morgan Varner, Thomas J. Wingfield, George Hart, Richard Goodman, William O. Green, Jr., Larry K. Butler, for appellees.

“It is clear that enforcement of indemnity provisions such as the one here in question turns on the issue of negligence, for the only limitation on the indemnitor’s liability is where the loss or injury results from the sole negligence of the indemnitee, see generally Ga. Ports Authority v. Central of Ga. R. Co., 135 Ga. App. 859, 864 ( 219 SE2d 467 ) (1975); or, in other words, if the loss or injury is attributable, even partly, to the negligence of the indemnitor, the obligation to indemnify arises. See generally Benson Paint Co. v. Williams Const. Co., 128 Ga. App. 47, 50 ( 195 SE2d 671 ) (1973).”

Charter Bldrs., Inc. v. Sims Crane Service, Inc., 150 Ga. App. 100, 101 ( 256 SE2d 678 ) (1979);

Ga. State Tel. Co. v. Scarboro, 148 Ga. App. 390 (2) ( 251 SE2d 309 ) (1978);

Binswanger Glass Co. v. Beers Const. Co., 141 Ga. App. 715 (3, 4) ( 234 SE2d 363 ) (1977). Accordingly, the order of the trial court is reversed.

Judgment reversed.

McMurray, P. J., and Banke, J., concur.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

(“any and all claims ... which arise out of the act or omission” of indemnitor)

Southern Ry. Co. v. Ga. Kraft Co., 823 F.2d 478 (11th Cir. 1987)

Cited by 3 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Georgia Ports Authority v. Southeast Atlantic Cargo Operators414 S.E.2d 232 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991)
Stafford Enterprises, Inc. v. American Cyanamid Co.297 S.E.2d 307 (Ga. Ct. App. 1982)
Southern Railway Company v. Georgia Kraft Company823 F.2d 478 (11th Cir. 1987)

Most recent

Georgia Ports Authority v. Southeast Atlantic Cargo Operators414 S.E.2d 232 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991)
Southern Railway Company v. Georgia Kraft Company823 F.2d 478 (11th Cir. 1987)
Stafford Enterprises, Inc. v. American Cyanamid Co.297 S.E.2d 307 (Ga. Ct. App. 1982)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 6

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Binswanger Glass Co. v. Beers Constr. Co., 234 S.E.2d 363 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977)	46
	Ga. State Tel. Co. v. Scarboro, 251 S.E.2d 309 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978)	24
	Charter Builders, Inc. v. Sims Crane Serv., Inc., 256 S.E.2d 678 (Ga. Ct. App. 1979)	20
	Ga. Ports Auth. v. Cent. of Ga. Ry. Co., 219 S.E.2d 467 (Ga. Ct. App. 1975)	18
	Benson Paint Co. v. Williams Constr. Co., 195 S.E.2d 671 (Ga. Ct. App. 1973)	15
	Arthur Pew Constr. Co. v. Bryan Constr. Co., 251 S.E.2d 105 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978)	6

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list