indemnity clause in Pennsylvania

2010No inferences from words of general import can establish such indemnification.” (citations omitted) In Ruzzi, supra at 8 , 588 A.2d at 4-5 , the indemnity clause read as follows: “[The Zinssers]... exonerate, discharge, and agree to protect and save harmless and indemnify [Butler Petroleum] . . . from any and all liability for claims for loss, damage, injury or other casualty to persons or property ... caused or occasioned by any leakage, fire, explosion or other casualty occurring through any imperfection in, injury or damage to, or by reason of the installation, use, operation and/or repair

2010No inferences from words of general import can establish such indemnification.” (citations omitted) In Ruzzi, supra at 8 , 588 A.2d at 4-5 , the indemnity clause read as follows: “[The Zinssers]... exonerate, discharge, and agree to protect and save harmless and indemnify [Butler Petroleum] . . . from any and all liability for claims for loss, damage, injury or other casualty to persons or property ... caused or occasioned by any leakage, fire, explosion or other casualty occurring through any imperfection in, injury or damage to, or by reason of the installation, use, operation and/or repair

2007Id.

2004Id.

2004The Superior Court has stated that, “[wjhile an exculpatory clause . . . differs somewhat from an indemnity clause ... there is such a substantial kinship between both types of contracts as to render decisions dealing with indemnity clauses applicable to decisions dealing with exculpatory clauses and vice versa.” Warren City Lines Inc. v. United Refining Company, 220 Pa. Super. 308, 311 n.1, 287 A.2d 149 , 150 n.1 (1971).

2004The Superior Court has stated that, “[wjhile an exculpatory clause . . . differs somewhat from an indemnity clause ... there is such a substantial kinship between both types of contracts as to render decisions dealing with indemnity clauses applicable to decisions dealing with exculpatory clauses and vice versa.” Warren City Lines Inc. v. United Refining Company, 220 Pa. Super. 308, 311 n.1, 287 A.2d 149 , 150 n.1 (1971).

1971In Schroeder v. Gulf Refining Co. (No. 2), 300 Pa. 405 , 150 A. 665 (1930), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, using standards virtually the same as those set forth above, construed an indemnity clause almost identical to the clause in the instant case. 8 The Court held that the clause did not relieve the defendant — fuel supplier from responsibility: “[T]he damage for which recompense is here sought was caused, not in the manner contemplated by the release, but by the negligent conduct of the employee of the defendant in permitting gasoline to overflow from the intake pipe while filling the unde

1971In Schroeder v. Gulf Refining Co. (No. 2), 300 Pa. 405 , 150 A. 665 (1930), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, using standards virtually the same as those set forth above, construed an indemnity clause almost identical to the clause in the instant case. 8 The Court held that the clause did not relieve the defendant — fuel supplier from responsibility: “[T]he damage for which recompense is here sought was caused, not in the manner contemplated by the release, but by the negligent conduct of the employee of the defendant in permitting gasoline to overflow from the intake pipe while filling the unde

2025Id.

2024Thus, the claimant’s “reinstatement petition was premised on a successful appeal of the indemnity claim.” Id. at 160 .

2015In support of the insufficiency of Raymond’s indemnification commitment, Jeffrey quotes this Court’s decision in Woodburn v. Consolidation Coal Co., 404 Pa.Super. 359 , 590 A.2d 1273 (1991): [F]or a party responsible [for] complying with safety regulations, to ignore those regulations because of an indemnity clause in a contract is very risky.

2015In support of the insufficiency of Raymond’s indemnification commitment, Jeffrey quotes this Court’s decision in Woodburn v. Consolidation Coal Co., 404 Pa.Super. 359 , 590 A.2d 1273 (1991): [F]or a party responsible [for] complying with safety regulations, to ignore those regulations because of an indemnity clause in a contract is very risky.

2011Instead, §12.05 simply addresses “any and all third party” claims or suits, and such “[g]eneral indemnity language is insufficient to remove the bar to [tort] recovery by the exclusivity provision of the Act.” Shumosky, supra. Accord, Parilla, supra (“The Pennsylvania precedents are quite clear that a general or blanket indemnity or contribution provision in a written contract is not sufficient to remove the immunity protection for an employer.”).

2008The chosen language simply does not evince an intent to provide indemnification for damages due to the negligence of other unspecified parties, including an indemni-tee.” Id. at 379 . ¶ 18 The Court read “the second part of the provision, which states that the indemnity clause will apply ‘regardless of whether or not such claim ... is caused in part by a party indemnified hereunder,’ merely to clarify that any contributory negligence by PennDOT and the subcontractor will not bar their indemnification for damages due to subcontractor’s negligence.” Id. at 379-80 .

2008The chosen language simply does not evince an intent to provide indemnification for damages due to the negligence of other unspecified parties, including an indemni-tee.” Id. at 379 . ¶ 18 The Court read “the second part of the provision, which states that the indemnity clause will apply ‘regardless of whether or not such claim ... is caused in part by a party indemnified hereunder,’ merely to clarify that any contributory negligence by PennDOT and the subcontractor will not bar their indemnification for damages due to subcontractor’s negligence.” Id. at 379-80 .

2003Thus, the lower court's decision to dismiss the indemnity claim as premature was not improper as it was in its discretion to do so. [4] 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 7532; Johnson, 806 A.2d at 434 .

2003Thus, the lower court’s decision to dismiss the indemnity claim as premature was not improper as it was in its discretion to do so. 4 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 7532; Johnson, 806 A.2d at 434 .

1997In Judge v. Allentown & Sacred Heart Hospital Center, 90 Pa. Commw. 520 , 496 A.2d 92 (1985), the Commonwealth Court considered the sufficiency of a claim for equitable indemnity.

1997In Judge v. Allentown & Sacred Heart Hospital Center, 90 Pa. Commw. 520 , 496 A.2d 92 (1985), the Commonwealth Court considered the sufficiency of a claim for equitable indemnity.

1997In addition, because CBI was involved in an “ultra-hazardous” activity, blasting, the court found that CBI could not contract away its strict liability through an indemnity clause, because such a clause “would weaken incentives to employ utmost safety precautions for the protection of the public.” Id. at 578 , 542 A.2d at 588-89 .

1997In addition, because CBI was involved in an “ultra-hazardous” activity, blasting, the court found that CBI could not contract away its strict liability through an indemnity clause, because such a clause “would weaken incentives to employ utmost safety precautions for the protection of the public.” Id. at 578 , 542 A.2d at 588-89 .

1993Topp Copy Products, Inc. v. Ernest Singletary, 404 Pa.Super. 459 , 591 A.2d 298 (1991). [2] The indemnity clause that was being interpreted in Ruzzi was as follows: [The Zinsers] . . . exonerate, discharge, and agree to protect and save harmless and indemnify [Butler Petroleum] . . . from any and all liability for claims for loss, damage, injury or other casualty to persons or property . . . caused or occasioned by any leakage, fire, explosion or other casualty occurring through any imperfection in, injury or damage to, or by reason of the installation, use, operation and/or repair of the said

1993Topp Copy Products, Inc. v. Ernest Singletary, 404 Pa.Super. 459 , 591 A.2d 298 (1991). [2] The indemnity clause that was being interpreted in Ruzzi was as follows: [The Zinsers] . . . exonerate, discharge, and agree to protect and save harmless and indemnify [Butler Petroleum] . . . from any and all liability for claims for loss, damage, injury or other casualty to persons or property . . . caused or occasioned by any leakage, fire, explosion or other casualty occurring through any imperfection in, injury or damage to, or by reason of the installation, use, operation and/or repair of the said

1993In sum, we find that the breach of warranty provisions of Article 2 — Sales of the Uniform Commercial Code apply with equal force to lease transactions, pursuant to this court’s decision in Cucchi v. Rollins Protective Services, 377 Pa.Super. 9, 32-34 , 546 A.2d 1131, 1143 (1988), reversed on other grounds, 524 Pa. 514 , 574 A.2d 565 (1990).

1993In sum, we find that the breach of warranty provisions of Article 2 — Sales of the Uniform Commercial Code apply with equal force to lease transactions, pursuant to this court’s decision in Cucchi v. Rollins Protective Services, 377 Pa.Super. 9, 32-34 , 546 A.2d 1131, 1143 (1988), reversed on other grounds, 524 Pa. 514 , 574 A.2d 565 (1990).

1991However, we do note the recently decided Superior Court case, Szymanski-Gallagher v. Chestnut Realty Co., 409 Pa. Super. 323 , 597 A.2d 1225 (1991), to which High called our attention by way of a recent letter and which held that an express waiver of the immunity is not required in an indemnification.

1991However, we do note the recently decided Superior Court case, Szymanski-Gallagher v. Chestnut Realty Co., 409 Pa. Super. 323 , 597 A.2d 1225 (1991), to which High called our attention by way of a recent letter and which held that an express waiver of the immunity is not required in an indemnification.

1991However, the panel added that “Gregg did not expressly agree, in the indemnity clause quoted above, to waive its statutory protection, and to assume unlimited liability for damages arising from harm suffered by its own employees as a result of the neglect of Duquesne.” Id. 537 A.2d at 883 .

1991However, the panel added that “Gregg did not expressly agree, in the indemnity clause quoted above, to waive its statutory protection, and to assume unlimited liability for damages arising from harm suffered by its own employees as a result of the neglect of Duquesne.” Id. 537 A.2d at 883 .

1984Brotherton Const. Co. v. Patterson-Emerson-Comstock, Inc., 406 Pa. 400 , 178 A.2d 696 (1962); Potts v. Dow Chemical Co., 272 Pa.Superior Ct. 323, 415 A.2d 1220 (1979).

1984Brotherton Const. Co. v. Patterson-Emerson-Comstock, Inc., 406 Pa. 400 , 178 A.2d 696 (1962); Potts v. Dow Chemical Co., 272 Pa.Superior Ct. 323, 415 A.2d 1220 (1979).