WPC* a-Psap. uC$`Rf3ɻ|u54dJ/4-V#""Eq=>KJw ҳu*4-^C`@i,!̫;}j-F E `(aQTXg_8rWP{e>DQDeR`L%C &Z7lj3N׍|bq=H4(13)tney&fGRXO/:!Ip<5WHH^aR],Nї|EA$;N\Ϥ$~C@_F7{SKߦk4\!j u &Xik`A%Ɣ%pbr*\5<$p4T#,af˭/ (w U:UKzme"'sT㱨6?*`GZ4XpzȐb#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz 0  E   0N 0 0lEQ 0S 05 0 0 0 0 0{ 0T 0* 0 0 0 0d 0+ 0 0 0 0w 0I! 0" 0" 0# 0s$b6%UN>%U @%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 0%%%% B&& 0& D3x' D-' 0K'' AS#(v( 0<) 0D) A$*HP LaserJet 8000 Series PS0/{) (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularUUb)afLI C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU2G+J 0_level1  X /%4 4 <DL/23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  ӁLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52D+J 0_level2   ," <DL,23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2A+J 0_level3   ) <DL)23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2>+J 0_level4  ` &<<DL&23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2;+J 0_level5   #DL#23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  28+J 0_level6    DL 23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  25+J 0_level7  h DDL23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  22+J 0_level8   L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2/+J 0_level9    L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2GJ 0_levsl1  X /%4 4 <DL/23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2DJ 0_levsl2   ," <DL,23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2AJ 0_levsl3   ) <DL)23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2>J 0_levsl4  ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2;J 0_levsl5   #DL#23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  28J 0_levsl6    DL 23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  25J 0_levsl7  h DDL23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  22J 0_levsl8   L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2/J 0_levsl9    L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2GJ 0_levnl1  X /%4 4 <DL/23   2( 4 <DL2  2DJ 0_levnl2   ," <DL,23   2( 4 <DL2  2AJ 0_levnl3   ) <DL)23   2( 4 <DL2  2>J 0_levnl4  ` &<<DL&23   2( 4 <DL2  2;J 0_levnl5   #DL#23   2( 4 <DL2  28J 0_levnl6    DL 23   2( 4 <DL2  25J 0_levnl7  h DDL23   2( 4 <DL2  22J 0_levnl8   L23   2( 4 <DL2  2/J 0_levnl9    L23   2( 4 <DL2  - -(I Z6Times New Roman Regular(9 Z(Times New Roman (|G2Sf$ !.8H<d d 8         0  + d(|3$ !.8H<d d 8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8H<d d 8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Ud d8     __  ///8#XXdd 8  @ ///INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#///#Ԉ &   October4,2000Session L /XX// #//X/X#HMCTECHNOLOGIESCORP.a/k/aHMCTECHNOLOGIES,INC.v. J _SIEBE_,INC._ROBERTSHAW_ԀTENNESSEEDIVISION/XX//   ^ @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforKnoxCounty  ^ @@No.1442683SharonBell,Chancellor  J FILEDNOVEMBER27,2000 "  @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200001093_COA_ԄR3CV#//X/X #/XX//Ԁ   AV) ` dE<` A      Inthisdeclaratoryjudgmentaction,theplaintiff,HMCTechnologiesCorp.a/k/aHMC  Technologies,Inc.( HMC),suedtoenforceanindemnificationprovisioncontainedinaproposal x submittedto,andacceptedby,thedefendant,_Siebe_,Inc._Robertshaw_ԀTennesseeDivision d ( _Robertshaw_).Bothpartiesmovedforsummaryjudgment.Thetrialcourtenteredjudgmentin P favorofHMC.Wereverse. <  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourt d Reversed;CaseRemanded  P   #///X#/XX.//CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHoustonM._Goddard_, ( _P.J._,andHerschelP.Franks,J.,joined.  ArthurG.Seymour,Jr.,andJamesE.Wagner,Knoxville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,_Siebe_,Inc.  _Robertshaw_ԀTennesseeDivision.  JayArthurGarrison,Knoxville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,HMCTechnologiesCorporation,a/k/a `!  HMCTechnologies,Inc. L"!  OPINION #//X/X#/XX// $$t# #//X/X #/XX//    I. %L!% )   Thefollowingfactsarenotindispute.OnApril19,1996,HMCsubmittedadetailedseven '$#' pageproposalto_Robertshaw_Ԁtorebuildapieceof_Robertshaw_sequipmentknownasthe_Kingsbury_ ($( machine.Theproposalincludesthefollowingwithinatwoparagraphprovisionheaded Operator )$) SafetyandGuarding: *%*   +&+ _8  8`   ItisexpectedthatRobertshawTennesseewillholdHMC  Technologiesharmlesstoanyclaimofinjuryduetoeitherthenormal  operationorthemisuseoftheproposedmachinery.` x` x  Thesevenpageproposalalsoincludesanumberofotherprovisionsunderthefollowingheadings: ` Price,ProposalRevisions,Delivery,Overview,Features,DesignConsiderations,Documentation, L  EquipmentandProcessDevelopment,ComponentIdentificationandPlacarding,Finish,Acceptance 8  Testing,InstallationAssistance,Environmental,HealthandSafetyConsiderations,Warranty, $ t PaymentTerms,Term,andFreight.TheproposalwasnotsignedbyRobertshaw;however,the  ` recordisclearthatRobertshawdidnotexpresslyobjecttoanyofitsterms.Furthermore,therecord  L  islikewiseclearthatHMCperformedtheworkontheKingsburymachineandwascompensatedby  8  Robertshaw,allpursuanttotheHMCproposal. $    InAugust,1997,oneofRobertshawsemployees,LarryBacon,wasinjuredwhileoperating   theKingsburymachine.BaconfiledaproductsliabilityactionagainstHMC,who,inturn,notified   RobertshawthatitintendedtotenderthedefenseofthisactiontoRobertshawpursuanttothe   indemnificationprovisioncontainedintheproposal.WhenRobertshawrefusedtodefendBacons p action,HMCbroughtthisdeclaratoryjudgmentaction. \   II. 4 @   `    WereviewthetrialcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmentagainstthestandardofTenn.R.Civ.  \ P.56.04,whichprovides,inpertinentpart,asfollows: H 8  8`   thejudgmentsoughtshallberenderedforthwithifthepleadings,   depositions,answerstointerrogatories,andadmissionsonfile,   togetherwiththeaffidavits,ifany,showthatthereisnogenuineissue  astoanymaterialfactandthatthemovingpartyisentitledtoa  judgmentasamatteroflaw.` x` x Becauseourinquiryinvolvesaquestionoflaw,thereisnopresumptionofcorrectnessastothetrial X  courtsjudgment. Robinsonv.Omer, 952S.W.2d423,426(Tenn.1997).Inmakingour D! determination,wemustviewtheevidenceinalightmostfavorabletothenonmovingparty,andwe 0"  mustdrawallreasonableinferencesinfavorofthatparty. Byrdv.Hall, 847S.W.2d208,210(Tenn. #l! 1993).Summaryjudgmentisappropriateonlyifnogenuineissuesofmaterialfactexistandifthe $X" undisputedfactsentitlethemovingpartytoajudgmentasamatteroflaw.Tenn.R.Civ.P.56.04; $D #  Byrd, 847S.W.2dat211. %0!$   III. '#& 0XXX/X?  UnderTennesseelaw,apartymaycontracttobeindemnifiedagainstitsownactsof )$( negligence;however,suchcontractsarestrictlyconstrued.See KelloggCo.v.Sanitors,Inc., 496 |*%) S.W.2d472,473,474(Tenn.1973). [A]contractofindemnitywillnotbeconstruedtoindemnify h+&* theindemniteeagainstlossesresultingfromhisownnegligentactsunlesssuchintentionisexpressed  inclearandunequivocalterms,orunlessnoothermeaningcanbeascribedtoit. Id. at474(quoting  41Am.Jur.2dIndemnity13). Meregeneral,broad,andseeminglyallinclusivelanguageisnot  sufficienttoimposeliabilityforthenegligenceoftheindemnitee. Wajtasiakv.MorganCounty,  t 633S.W.2d488,490(Tenn.Ct.App.1982);seealso FirstAmericanNatlBankv.TennesseeGas ` TransmissionCo., 58Tenn.App.189,199,428S.W.2d35,39(1967)(holdingindemnityprovision L  toogeneraltoincludeindemnityforindemniteesnegligentactsoromissions). 8    In Wajtasiak ,adeclaratoryjudgmentaction,thisCourtwasaskedtodecidewhetherthe  ` defendantMorganCountywas contractuallyobligatedtoindemnifyplaintifffordamagesthat  L  plaintiffmaybeliableforduetonegligenceonhispartresultinginanautomobileaccidentona  8  portionofaruralroadbeingreconstructedbyMorganCountyatthedirectionoftheTennessee $  DepartmentofTransportation. Id .at489.Theplaintiffin Wajtasiak 󀄄anemployeeofthe   TennesseeDepartmentofTransportationhadbeensuedbyanindividualwhowasinjuredina   motorvehicleaccident,allegedlycausedbythenegligenceofthestateemployee. Id .Inthe   declaratoryjudgmentactionagainstMorganCounty,theplaintiffrelieduponthefollowingprovision   inthepertinentconstructionagreementbetweenMorganCountyandtheStateDepartmentof p Transportation: \   8 ` ItisfurtheragreedthattheCountyshall,inaccordancewiththe 4 GeneralProvisionsoftheStateStandardSpecifications,assumeall  p responsibilityfor,andsavetheStateharmlessfromanysuits,actions  \ orclaimsofanycharacter,broughtfororonaccountofanyinjuries H ordamagesreceivedorsustainedbyanyperson,persons,orproperty 4 growingoutofanyactionoractionsoftheCountyintheconductof   theworkorbytheneglectoftheCountyinsafeguardingthe   construction.` x` x  Id .Thesubjectagreementincorporatedbyreferencetheaforesaidspecifications,includingone  imposingthefollowingobligationuponMorganCounty: l   8 ` Toholdharmlessanddefendagainstallclaimsofwhatevernature D! arisingoutoftheWork,theState,anypoliticalsubdivisionthereof, 0"  andallemployeesoftheState,FederalGovernment,andanyrailroad #l! involved.Thisresponsibilitygenerallyextendstoinnocentthird $X" parties.$D #` x` x  Id .At490. &"%   ThisCourtheldin Wajtasiak thatthesubjectindemnityprovisionsdidnot indemnifythe (#' Stateoritsemployeesagainsttheiractsofnegligence. Id .At491.Findingthelanguageinquestion )$( tobetoobroadlywritten,westatedthefollowing: |*%)  h+&*   8 ` Asothercourtshaveoftennoted,ifnegligentactsoftheindemnitee  areintendedtobeincludedinthecoverage,itwouldonlytakeafew  secondsfortheattorneystouseappropriateexpresslanguagesuchas   includingindemniteesactsofnegligence.t` x` x  Id .At490. L    TheindemnificationprovisionintheHMCproposalstatesthatHMCexpectsRobertshaw $ t toholdHMCharmless toanyclaimofinjuryduetoeitherthenormaloperationorthemisuseof  ` theproposedmachinery.Thislanguageis general,broad,andseeminglyallinclusive.See #0/X0X #0XX0/#/XXX0Xd#0XXX/X  L   Wajtasiak, 633S.W.2dat490.Itdoesnot express[]inclearandunequivocaltermsanintentto  8  requireRobertshawtoindemnifyHMCagainstHMCsownculpableconduct.See Kellogg, 496 $  S.W.2dat474.#/XXX0X/#0XXX/X#0/X0X.#0XX0/ HMCarguestheprovisionneverthelessrequiressuchindemnificationbecauseno   othermeaningcanbeascribedtoit.Wedisagree.Wefindthelanguagetobesusceptibletomore   thanonemeaning.Indeed,thelanguagecanfairlybeinterpretedascoveringclaimsarisingfromthe   culpableconductofRobertshaw.Insum,theprovisiondoesnotevidenceaclearintent,either   expressorimplied,torequireRobertshawtoindemnifyHMCagainstitsownconduct.Basedon p theundisputedmaterialfacts,Robertshawisentitledtosummaryjudgment. \ #0/X0X0#0Y 0/  #0/ 0Y3#0XX0/#/XXX0Xu0#  IV. @ 74  Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisreversed.Thiscaseisremandedfortheentryofan  appropriateorderconsistentwiththisopinionandforthecollectionofcostsassessedbelow,all  pursuanttoapplicablelaw.Costsonappealaretaxedtotheappellee.#//X/X3#/XX//     `     h     ___________________________________ d    `     h     CHARLESD.SUSANO,JR.,JUDGE