Summary
The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed summary judgment for Hardman Trucking, holding that Appalachian Aggregates was not entitled to express indemnification under the parties’ Trucking Agreement. The indemnification provision applied only when Hardman was hauling materials for Appalachian under the agreement, whereas the stone involved in the accident was being hauled for Hardman’s own customer. The court concluded that Appalachian’s admissions established that the incident fell outside the agreement’s scope.
Holdings
- The express indemnification provision did not require Hardman to indemnify Appalachian because the accident occurred while Hardman was hauling stone for its own customer, not while performing hauling requested by or for Appalachian under the trucking agreement.
- Summary judgment was proper because there was no genuine issue of material fact concerning whether the trucking agreement covered the incident, and Hardman was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Questions Presented
- Whether the trucking agreement required Hardman to indemnify Appalachian for an accident occurring while Hardman was hauling stone for its own customer rather than hauling materials requested by or for Appalachian.
- Whether summary judgment was proper where Appalachian admitted that the indemnification provision did not apply unless Hardman was hauling for Appalachian under the agreement.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (4)
- Painter v. Peavy, 192 W. Va. 189, 451 S.E.2d 755 (1994)(followed)
- Barnett v. Wolfolk, 149 W. Va. 246, 140 S.E.2d 466 (1965)(followed)
- Old Republic Ins. Co. v. O’Neal, 237 W. Va. 512, 525, 788 S.E.2d 40, 53 (2016)(followed)
- Williams v. Precision Coil, Inc., 194 W. Va. 52, 59 n.8, 459 S.E.2d 329, 336 n.8 (1995)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…