The Subcontractor's Indemnity and the Falling Load
Meridian Construction was the general contractor on a six-story office build. It subcontracted steel erection to Ironline. The subcontract required Ironline to indemnify Meridian for "all claims arising from Ironline's work," including Meridian's own negligence, and to name Meridian as an additional insured. A crane operator employed by Ironline dropped a beam, injuring a pedestrian and damaging a parked car. The pedestrian sues Meridian and Ironline. Investigation shows Meridian's safety manager directed the crane operator to swing the load over the sidewalk to save time, contrary to the lift plan. The pedestrian's medical bills are $410,000; the car damage is $38,000. The state has a statute voiding indemnity for a promisor's sole negligence but permitting indemnity for concurrent negligence.
1. Analyze the indemnity obligation and the anti-indemnity statute's effect.
Read the worked answer
The subcontract's indemnity clause is broad, covering "all claims arising from Ironline's work" and expressly including Meridian's negligence. The state statute voids indemnity for the indemnitee's sole negligence but permits indemnity where negligence is concurrent. That makes the allocation of fault decisive.
On these facts, Meridian's safety manager affirmatively directed the crane operator to swing over the sidewalk, contrary to the lift plan. That is active negligence by Meridian. The crane operator's act of dropping the beam is Ironline's negligence. The injury therefore arises from concurrent negligence, and the clause is enforceable to the extent it shifts Ironline's share - but not Meridian's own share. A clause purporting to indemnify Meridian for its own concurrent negligence is enforceable under this statute, but courts often construe such clauses narrowly and require clear language; "arising from Ironline's work" may not clearly cover Meridian's independent negligence.
Practical allocation: Ironline indemnifies Meridian for the portion of loss attributable to Ironline's negligence; Meridian bears its own share. The additional-insured requirement means Meridian should tender the claim to Ironline's carrier, which may defend under a reservation. The anti-indemnity statute does not void the insurance procurement obligation in most states, so the tender should proceed. Meridian's exposure for the pedestrian's $410,000 and the $38,000 car damage should be apportioned by comparative fault, with a setoff for any insurance recovery.
2. The pedestrian sues Meridian directly. What liability theories apply, and how does the additional-insured endorsement interact with the indemnity?
Read the worked answer
Direct liability. Meridian faces vicarious liability for its subcontractor's acts only if the work is inherently dangerous or Meridian retained control. Steel erection over a public sidewalk is inherently dangerous, and Meridian's safety manager retained and exercised control by directing the lift. That supports direct negligence: negligent direction, failure to enforce the lift plan, and failure to maintain safe pedestrian protection. The pedestrian may also plead premises liability and a nondelegable duty to protect the public.
Comparative fault. Meridian will be assigned a share; the jurisdiction's several-liability rules determine whether Meridian pays only its share or is jointly liable for Ironline's share. If joint and several liability applies, Meridian pays all and seeks contribution.
Additional insured. The endorsement gives Meridian status as an insured under Ironline's policy for liabilities arising out of Ironline's work. It is not a substitute for indemnity: the insurer's duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify, and Meridian can tender the defense immediately. The carrier may reserve rights and may deny coverage for Meridian's sole negligence if the endorsement is limited to vicarious liability. Meridian should tender, preserve the indemnity claim, and pursue contractual defense costs. Note the interplay: the anti-indemnity statute limits the indemnity but generally does not limit the insurance obligation, so the tender is the fastest recovery route.