Powell v. ABS
Plaintiff and Owner settled a wrongful death claim through an agreement that contained an indemnity/hold harmless clause. Plaintiff then sued ABS for the same incident resulting in the wrongful death. ABS commenced an action against Owner for contribution and indemnity for Plaintiff’s claim. The Norfolk Circuit Court enforced the settlement agreement’s indemnity/hold harmless provision in favor of Owner, thus requiring Plaintiff to indemnify Owner in respect of ABS’s claim. As a result, the action against the ABS became circular and effectively ended Plaintiff’s claim.
DMC Category: Confirmed
Case Note contributed by Matthew H. James of Healy & Baillie, LLP in New York. Healy & Baillie are the International Contributors to the website for the United States of America
With acknowledgements to John M Ryan, of the law firm Vandeventer Black of Norfolk, Virginia, Counsel for Owner, for bringing the case to the Editor’s attention
Plaintiff then brought suit in state court against ABS and two of its surveyors who had inspected the vessel one month before the fire. ABS filed a third party claim for contribution and indemnity against Owner pursuant to its certificate classifying the vessel as seaworthy. Owner moved for judgment against Plaintiff pursuant to the "hold harmless" clause in the settlement agreement, arguing that Plaintiff had a contractual duty to defend Owner against the ABS claim and to indemnify Owner to the extent it was found liable to ABS.
Plaintiff resisted Owner’s motion on three grounds. First,
Plaintiff argued that the ABS claim against Owner did not "arise" from
the death of Plaintiff’s husband. Second, Plaintiff argued that the ABS claim
against Owner was not within "the contemplation of the parties" at the
time of execution of the settlement agreement. Third, Plaintiff argued that
Owner had not yet suffered any loss for which it could be indemnified.
The Court then rejected Plaintiff’s second argument as "third party claims" or "claims for contribution and/or indemnification" were specifically mentioned in the settlement agreement. Moreover, the Court noted that it is common for multiple defendants to seek contribution and indemnity from each other in a death action and criticized Plaintiff’s counsel for not anticipating such a possibility during the drafting of the settlement agreement.
Finally, the Court rejected Plaintiff’s third argument because Virginia abolished the requirement that a party suffer an "actual loss" before seeking indemnification from another potentially liable party. Moreover, the Court noted that Owner had already suffered an "actual loss" in the form of legal fees incurred in defending against the ABS claim.
These Case Notes have been prepared with care, but neither the Editor nor the International and other Contributors can guarantee that they are free from error, nor that they contain every pertinent point. Reliance should not therefore be placed upon them without independent verification. The Editor and the International and other Contributors disclaim all liability for any loss of whatsoever nature and howsoever arising as a result of others acting or refraining from acting in reliance on the contents of this website and the information to which it gives access. The Editor claims copyright in the content of the website.