Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. NANCO CONTRACTING CORP., et al., Defendants, Insurance Company of North America, et al., Defendants-Respondents, Leskay Construction Service, Inc., et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered December 11, 1997, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by defendants-appellants' brief, granted defendant-respondent indemnitee summary judgment on its cross claim against appellants, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
We agree with the IAS court that the subject agreement, which requires appellants to indemnify respondent for “any loss, liability, claim or expense which may be incurred by reason of any action which may hereafter be taken or pursued by any ․ [unsatisfied trade] creditor [of appellants] ․ with regard to or against” the construction project in question, unambiguously applies to the cross claim in this action that was asserted against respondent prior to the execution of the agreement, but which was dormant for several years before and after. To hold otherwise would be to read the words “or pursued” out of the subject agreement, as if the indemnification obligation extended only to “any action which may hereafter be taken” (assuming that “taken” is a synonym for “commenced”), and not also to any action “hereafter ․ pursued” without regard to when such action was commenced or first “taken”. One party had to bear the risk that the cross claim against respondent would be reactivated, and the plain language of the agreement indicates that it was appellants, not respondent. We have considered appellants' other arguments and find them to be without merit.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: October 15, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)