The defendant, HOTH, moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of duty to defend and indemnity pursuant to provisions in construction contracts. The defendant argued that pursuant to the provisions of the construction contract the contractor was obligated to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless HOTH and sought to be reimbursed its defense costs.
The contractor argues that the provision applies to the insurance coverage that both parties were required to maintain and that any duty to defend was left to the insurance carrier. The court found that based on the language in the provisions directly preceding the indemnity clause there is ambiguity as to whether the provision was intended to relate to the insurance coverage mandated. Therefore, the court denies the motion for summary judgment as there was a genuine issue of material fact.
MJM Industries, Inc. v. The Henley Company, Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford, Docket No. CV18-6035253-S (February 18, 2020)