Legal Update: Craft et al. v. Max Access LLC et al.: Lessons in Indemnity, Comparative Fault, and Procedural Litigation Strategy.
Authors: Christopher K. LeMieux and Antonio Torres
In a recent ruling from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Craft et al. v. Max Access LLC et al. (No. 6:22-CV-05899), the court granted a motion for judgment, dismissing Third-Party claims for negligence and breach of contract under Louisiana law. This decision reinforces crucial lessons for contractors on indemnity provisions.
Case Background
The case arose from a workplace accident on May 16, 2022, when Plaintiff, an employee of a subcontractor, was working on scaffolding at a construction project. The scaffolding collapsed, causing severe injuries.
The project Owner contracted with the General Contractor, who then hired a Subcontractor, who hired a Sub-subcontractor, to deliver and install the scaffolding system used for the exterior work. The Sub-subcontractor sought indemnity from the Subcontractor, under an alleged contract. The Subcontractor disputed this, arguing that the alleged contract lacked signatures, price terms, or any clear reference to an agreement between the parties. The court agreed, dismissing Max Access’s claims.
Key Issue Before the Court
The Sub-subcontractor’s claim against the Subcontractor alleged that the Subcontractor was in breach of contract for violation of an indemnity provision. The Sub-subcontractor alleged the existence of a contract between it and the Subcontractor, but the Court noted that the supposed “contract” contained no mention or reference to the Subcontractor, made no mention that there was a contract between the Sub-subcontractor and the Subcontractor, nor were there any price terms nor terms showing that the Subcontractor consented to a contract with the Sub-subcontractor. Additionally, the supposed “contract” was not signed by the Subcontractor. Because of this, the Court agreed with the Subcontractor, emphasizing that Louisiana law requires clear and unequivocal intent to establish indemnity obligations and that the alleged “contract” in this case did no such thing.
Bottom Line:
This case highlights the importance of precise, well-documented indemnity provisions which must be explicit, signed by all parties, and clearly identify obligations. Contractors should ensure all indemnity agreements are clear and executed by both parties.
